The role of women in the Resistance: a memory to be reclaimed

This article is taken from the "Experts" section of the July 2025 issue of Omalius magazine.

How did women integrate resistance movements during the 40-45 war?

Axel Tixhon: Women were found in resistance networks hiding Jewish children, Allied soldiers and airmen, and political opponents. These people were often housed temporarily before being exfiltrated by escape routes from the occupied territories to Spain and then Great Britain. The hiding networks relied on small family units, hermetically sealed from the outside world, but very open on the inside. Naturally, when a family welcomed someone under its roof, all its members, especially the women, took part. Their involvement was therefore an extension of the traditional role they played at the time.

We also observe profiles of emancipated women. For example, Louise-Marie Danhaive, known for her literary activities before the war, became involved in the underground press. She thus broke away from the traditional role of women. There were also lesser-known personalities such as Juliette Bernard. Involved in a folk group in Fosses-la-Ville before the war, she was to enter the Resistance, mainly in the intelligence sector and helping Communist Party supporters.

Although quite rare, some women also took up arms, like Madeleine Tasset (Andenne), a photo of whom has been found showing her handling a machine gun and wearing secret army garb.

Resistance women have often been invisibilized, how do you explain this?

Bénédicte Rochet: First of all, there are factors specific to the history of Belgian resistance and politics. In the aftermath of the 2nd World War, the government had to deal with thousands of resistance fighters, some of whom were armed, while others were part of the Front de l'indépendance, a predominantly Communist network whose size raised fears of revolution in our country. Churchill and Roosevelt urged the Belgian government to take back the reins of power and maintain order, relying on official police forces and the Belgian army. In this context, the resistance was denigrated and, above all, disarmed.

From November 1944 onwards, resistance fighters demonstrated to gain recognition for their status. These demonstrations were to be swept under the carpet by the government and even the press. Even today, commemorations focus mainly on the army. And when we talk about the Resistance, we pay tribute to those who died during the war.

Many women, moreover, won't apply for status recognition because they don't identify with the military connotation associated with it at the time. What's more, since they often joined the resistance with the whole family unit, it was the father of the family who would submit the application for recognition. All this contributed to the invisibilization of resistance fighters.

A.T.: At the symposium, Ellen De Soete, founder of the Coalition 8 mai, gave a very moving testimony. She explained how her mother, an arrested and tortured resistance fighter, built her whole life on silence. Her ordeal was the consequence of the fact that others had spoken out. It was therefore essential for her to keep silent so as not to endanger her children. If they knew, they too might be tortured. It was only at the end of her life that she began to speak out. Ellen De Soete explained that, as children, their mother forbade them to go out or invite friends to the house. The scars caused by the war often went beyond the individuals themselves to have an impact on the whole family, including subsequent generations. It was this culture of silence that contributed to the invisibility of women resistance fighters.

B.R.: Starting in the 60s and 70s, there was a shift with gender studies. Studies would initially focus on women at work and women's rights, but not at all on their role in wartime contexts. It wasn't until the late 90s and early 2000s, therefore, that history turned its attention to women resistance fighters during the 40-45 war.

At the symposium, you also addressed the relationship between today's far right and gender issues. Women's rights are often undermined by far-right parties, yet in France, Italy and Germany, the leading figures of these parties are women. How can we explain this contradiction?

A.T.: It's hard to answer, as it seems so illogical. It seems more like an opportunistic posture than a desire to make the genders equal in society. The presence of women at the head of far-right movements in Europe is a means of deradicalizing the discourse. We also know that, in the political communication of the far right, there's no shortage of paradoxes. In a way, these parties like to play up the gap between what is expected of political figures and what they say or do. So a woman who makes a speech that's borderline masculinist is acceptable in these parties, whereas it wouldn't be in a traditional party.

B.R.: The political scientists who took part in the symposium also provided an element of response that joins and completes the story. In their platforms, these parties claim to defend women's right to a sense of security. They tell them: you're lucky, you're free and you live in a context of freedom of expression, but you lack physical security. And who puts this security at risk? It's these migrants, these foreigners who rape our women and who are designated as the common enemy. This talk of security can affect some women. Those who joined the Nazi party as early as the 30s, did so with the idea of living in a secure society sheltered from the violence of Communists, Jews, etc.

Did Nazism also rely on great female figures?

B.R.:We only began to look at the women of the Third Reich in the 1990s. Women often played a role as wives. Examples include Magda Goebbels, wife of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, or Emmy Sonnemann, wife of Hermann Göring. These women played a role in networking and supporting the regime, organizing dinners and receptions, for example. Jonathan Glazer's recent film, "The Zone of Interest", illustrates this role of women. It focuses on the family of the Auschwitz camp commandant. It shows how his wife establishes a welcoming family climate and thus plays an important role in supporting her husband, even though she knows what's going on in the camp on the other side of his garden wall.

Aside from wives, over 500,000 women enlisted for the Third Reich, as camp guards, nurses and so on. And then there were a few personalities who didn't act as wives. Leni Riefenstahl, for example, made documentary films that supported the party.

A.T.: And these were probably the most effective films of Nazi propaganda!

The Nazi party's program for women has evolved over the years. In the '30s, it was all about keeping women safe. In the 40s, women's role was to produce babies to support the Aryan race. And then, in 43, as the Nazis realized they were losing the war, the cursor moved again: women were then engaged in the war industry.

Memorial work among the general public often focuses on the consequences of Nazism, less on the mechanisms and rhetoric that enabled the Nazis to come to power. Are the methods and rhetoric of the time similar to those of today's far right?

A.T.: Yes, for example in the search for scapegoats and the development of fears. At the symposium, political scientists spoke of "moral panics". Today, the far right insists, for example, on the decline of moral values, pointing the finger at transgender people or people with different sexual preferences. It will insist on the need to transform the social model to return to a traditional one, all the while instilling fear. The instrumentalization of fears is the foundation of the electoral strategy of far-right parties, either by accentuating fears that exist, or by literally giving them birth.

We know that anti-Semitism existed beforehand, but the Nazis attached to it many violent and dehumanizing discourses, to justify the extermination of the Jews. Violence was, from then on, justified by the fact that Jewish, gypsy and homosexual populations were dangerous.

The same pattern can be found today in some of the aggressive rhetoric coming from far-right or, more generally, extremist groupuscules. These speeches could lead some to justify violence similar to that of the 40-45 war against these so-called threats to society.

B.R.: The rhetoric is also similar. Both in the Nazi party and in today's far-right parties, we're faced with tribunes who, like Hitler or Goebbels, love monologues. They give speeches that assert truths and create moral panic. On the other hand, all these tribunes are in trouble when they have to debate ideas.

It's much the same today. In an adversarial debate, Donald Trump will, for example, go into conflict, as he did with President Zelenski. Göring, Hitler and Goebbels did exactly the same thing. Sound archives of the Reichstag fire trial have been found in which Göring can be heard going completely out of his depth when put in contradiction with one of the defendants or one of the lawyers.

So these similarities should alert us to the dangers of today's extreme right?

A.T.: Yes. This is the aim of "Coalition 8 mai", created by Ellen De Soete, who realized that, during commemorations, we perpetuate the same gestures, but have often lost the meaning of them. Today, however, there is every reason to fear that the horrors of 40-45 could be repeated. The association wants to raise public awareness of this danger. That's why it has asked the History Department to organize this symposium.

Copyrights (in order of appearance):

• Louise-Marie Danhaive
• Imprimerie clandestine à Liège, 1944 - © Cegesoma
• Madeleine Tasset - copyright: © Collection M. Tasset, Bibliotheca Andana
• Irma Caldow in Solre-sur-Sambre circa 1943-1944 - © Cegesoma
• The kiss on GI September 1944 - © Cegesoma