Illusions of Protection: Lessons from the Nazi’s Perversion of the Protector Archetype
Recently, I watched the movie Protector depicting tough life in the 1939 to 1945 Bohemia and Moravia, territories occupied by Nazi Germany, referred to as the Protectorate (of Bohemia and Moravia). It made me think about a complex and multifaceted archetype of the Protector, especially when intertwined with issues of power and abuse. During history classes, I had never wondered that the name ‘Protectorate’ would be in such shocking contrast to what was actually happening within its boundaries.
The word “Protectorate” evolved from Latin into Middle English “protectour”, meaning someone who protects or is a guardian. Carl Gustav Jung theorised that the Protector archetype is rooted deeply in the collective unconscious. Through it, the qualities of safeguarding, defending, and nurturing appear in various forms across cultures in mythology, literature, and psychology. The $2 billion in worldwide revenue of the Marvel superhero franchise spells out the relevance of the archetype even for today’s psyche.
The contrariety of the term “Protectorate” and the lived reality of the Czech people under the Nazi tyrannical rule poses a question:
Who was being protected in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and from whom?
Established after the takeover of the Czechoslovakia by Hitler, safeguarding from internal and external enemies was used as a communication strategy covering the real motivation of the Third Reich. After all, it was Nazi Germany under Goebbels, as Reich Minister of Propaganda, that refined the techniques of mass hypnosis to an unprecedented scale. Nazis mastered the craft of political advertising through art, music, theatre, films, books, radio, educational materials, and the press to spread their ideology, control information, and manipulate public opinion in a systematic, pervasive, and unfortunately effective way.
The name “Protectorate” was a prime example of the Orwellian doublespeak denoting benevolence, whilst action spoke tyranny. Today, the manipulations of Nazi propaganda and Hitler’s aggressive intentions appear glaringly obvious; however, it’s crucial to acknowledge that the major global powers, through actions like the Munich Agreement, effectively paved the way for Hitler’s expansion, notably seen with the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Clearly, the SS marketing was effective, at least to a certain point in history. To not alarm the superpowers, Germans curated a saviour illusion to support their intrusion in Czechoslovakia:
· Protection from chaos and disorder:
By occupying the region, Germany presented itself as a stabilising force that safeguarded against internal strife and the escalation of ethnic tensions between Czechs, Slovaks, and the German minority.
· Ethnic German interests:
Hitler’s regime claimed they were acting in the interest of the Sudeten Germans, who were supposedly being discriminated against or threatened within Czechoslovakia. By “protecting” these ethnic Germans, Nazi Germany justified its intervention as a form of ethnic solidarity and liberation, framing it as a rescue operation for their kin.
· Economic stability and prosperity:
Nazi propaganda emphasized that the German administration would bring economic benefits, integrating Bohemia and Moravia into the greater German economic sphere. They argued that under German rule, the region would see investments, industrial development, and an end to economic woes, suggesting that German oversight was necessary for economic revival. In reality, it was riches in raw materials, agricultural produce and advanced manufacturing capabilities, especially in arms production (like the famous Škoda Works), machinery, automobiles, chemicals that were sought to be exploited in the Czech lands. The industrial squeezing was seconded by the financial one. Currency controls were set up, forcing the exchange of Czechoslovak Koruna at unfavourable rates, and using the local economy to finance the occupation.
· Historical and cultural ties:
Germany highlighted historical connections, pointing out that Bohemia and Moravia had been part of the Holy Roman Empire and later the Austro-Hungarian Empire alongside German-speaking territories. This narrative was used to claim a historical right or destiny to govern these lands, suggesting a natural and historical unity under German leadership.
· Defence against bolshevism:
With the fear of communism prevalent in Europe, Germany positioned itself as the bulwark against the spread of Bolshevism from the East. By occupying Czechoslovakia, Germany would rescue not just the Czechs but all of Europe from the Soviet threat, framing their military and political control as a necessary defensive measure.
· Legal justification via Munich Agreement:
Although the Munich Agreement did not grant Germany the right to occupy Bohemia and Moravia, Nazi officials manipulated interpretations of the agreement. They argued that since the international community had already agreed to the annexation of the Sudetenland, further actions extended stability and German interests in the region. This created a veneer of legality for their subsequent complete takeover, arguing that it was done with the implicit or reluctant agreement of world powers who did not intervene further.
It needs to be said that tensions existed over the cultural and political position of the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia. However, Nazi Germany exaggerated and exploited these grievances for political gain. Czechoslovakia was relatively progressive in its treatment of minorities, including the Sudeten Germans, during the interwar period:
· The German parties had representatives in the National Assembly. German-speaking politicians held significant positions in the government. For example, Franz Spina, a member of the German Agrarian Party, served as a minister several times during the 1920s and 1930s.
· German was recognised as an official language in regions where Germans made up a significant portion of the population. This allowed for the use of German in administrative matters, courts, and education in these areas.
· There was a well-developed system of German-language schools, from elementary to university level. Charles University in Prague, for instance, had a German section, allowing education in German.
Nazi Germany adopted the guise of a protector, only to enact a systematic exploitation, pushing Czechoslovakia towards the tragic path that would eventually lead to its entrapment under communism post-World War II. Importantly, this dynamic was exacerbated by many other factors, such as the absence of a genuine protector among the world powers; the appeasement policy exemplified by figures like Chamberlain effectively cleared the stage for Hitler to transition from a facade of protection to outright persecution. The historical trajectory of the Czech nation, shaped by its geographical position and modest size, has imbued it with a persistent sense of victimhood. This has been reinforced through successive mistreatment by neighbouring countries, ingraining a complex within the national consciousness that has played into these unhealthy geopolitical dynamics.
Karpman Drama Triangle — Psychology Meets Geopolitics
This recurring theme of victimhood in the Czech national story can be effectively explored through the Karpman Drama Triangle, developed by Stephen Karpman, which delineates three key roles: Victim, Persecutor and Protector.
In this psychological and social model, nations, much like individuals, can slip into roles perpetuating conflict and powerlessness. The benefits of using this concept rests in understanding dysfunctional dynamics and finding ways out of them. Awareness and understanding of motivations, projections, identifications and ways each of the roles seeks validation and power, we can ideally step out of the toxic relationship.
Victim
The role of the victim in interpersonal dynamics finds a parallel in the geopolitical landscape, particularly in the events leading up to and during the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. In this concept, victims find and see themselves at the effect of others’ actions or external events, rather than as an agent of change. They manipulate by guilt-tripping or playing on the guilt of potential rescuers.
Victims might take on the mantle of the persecutor when they gain power or when their expectations of a rescuer are unmet. This transformation isn’t confined to personal narratives, but echoes through the corridors of history. For instance, in Czechoslovakia’s turbulent past, the Masin brothers exemplify this dynamic. The anti-communist fighters, in their quest for freedom, shot their way into the West Berlin, killing several seven people during their escape. Since then, the Czech society has been divided into two camps by this moral puzzle. The continuous discourse and questions about whether the Masin Gang were heroes or villains shows that the Czech psyche has had hard times to fully embrace the Persecutor archetype, even if done to fight against a horrific regime.
Protector
Protectors might enable the victim’s role by continually rescuing them without encouraging independence or self-resolution. They neglect their own needs for the sake of others; on the political level, they ignore their own internal problems whilst getting involved in foreign matters. Their sense of righteousness fuels feeling of superiority and self-worth. To a superficial observer, their uprightness can be interchangeable with goodness. Over time, if they feel unappreciated, they shift into the Persecutor or Victim polarities.
Persecutor
Bullies or persecutors can be overtly aggressive or subtly manipulative, criticising or blaming others. Through fear, intimidation, or authority, they exert control or power over others. They rarely take responsibility for their own actions and move into a victim’s role when confronted or when their actions backfire, claiming they are being unfairly treated or misunderstood.
In the drama triangle, changes in behaviour, perception, or context are signified by arrows going both ways. This fluidity had played out in the example of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia:
Initially, Nazi Germany presented itself as a protector of the Sudeten Germans, claiming to save them from supposed oppression and integrate them into a safe, Germanic sphere. Also, the Czech population was cast as victims needing protection from chaos, economic distress, and as a buffer against Bolshevism, albeit under German terms. In 1938, Great Britain, France (and Italy) by signing the Munich agreement, gave up on the chance to become genuine rescuers in the rising geopolitical imbalance in Europe. That would imply to face Hitler as his direct Persecutors. Instead, by their compliance, they facilitated Hitler’s act of aggression.
Quickly, once control was established, the role of Nazi Germany shifted from protector to persecutor. The regime’s true intentions for exploitation, suppression of Czech culture, and use of Czech industry for war efforts became clear. While primarily victims, segments of the Czech population engaged in resistance activities, attempting to protect themselves. The resistance movement culminated in 1942 in the Operation Anthropoid, the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, the acting governor of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and a principal architect of the Holocaust.
The Allies, including the USSR, UK, and USA, took on more defined rescuer roles through military action against Nazi Germany, aiming to liberate occupied territories, including Czechoslovakia. It is worth noting the Czech Government in Exile that acted as both a victim in exile and a potential rescuer, working to gain international support and eventually taking part in the war effort to liberate their homeland and the Slovak nation that after the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, declared its independence. This new Slovak state, often referred to as the First Slovak Republic, led by Jozef Tiso, contributed to the persecutive war effort of Germany. It was perhaps underrepresentation of the Slovak interests within Prague centralised Czechoslovakia that led to Slovaks’ alignment with the Rome–Berlin Axis.
Carl Gustav Jung, a famous Swiss analyst, argued that historical events where protectors turn into persecutors reflect a collective failure to engage with the collective unconscious and, importantly, with repressed pain.
“There is no coming to consciousness without pain. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own Soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”
(C. G. Jung, Alchemical Studies, CW 13, par. 335)
It is in the speculative realm to ponder what could have been done by Germany, the Czechs, or the Western Allies to potentially mitigate or avoid the toxic drama dynamics leading up to and during the period of 1939–1945:
Germany
The nation could have engaged in a more introspective national dialogue about the humiliation and economic despair post-World War I, rather than allowing these feelings to manifest as aggressive nationalism. This would involve confronting the collective shadow of defeat, economic hardship, and the desire for revenge or reclamation of power. Instead of suppressing political dissent and minority voices, fostering an environment where different political and cultural ideas could be expressed might have diluted the concentration of extremist ideologies.
Bohemia and Moravia
For the Czechs, strengthening a sense of national identity that included all ethnic groups could have theoretically helped to reduce the vulnerability to divide-and-conquer tactics used by external powers. Addressing the grievances of the Sudeten Germans within Czechoslovakia more inclusively and working through many historical traumas of Czechs might have better prepared them to deal with external pressures.
Western Allies
For the Western Allies, instead of demonizing the enemy, which can be seen as a projection of one’s own shadow, understanding the socio-economic reasons behind the support for extremist leaders could have led to policies aimed at mitigating those conditions.
Individuation — the Process of Integrating one’s Shadow
Similar thoughts suggest that integration of the nation’s shadow and history — the repressed, denied, or unacknowledged aspects — could have mitigated the course of the tragic events. Sure, historical events are influenced by many complex factors beyond the scope of psychological theory alone. However, facing painful truths about past actions, current intentions, and future aspirations, lead to awareness introducing choice into the drama dynamics. In this analogy, all the parties involved in the drama relationships would have had to be in therapy together. Imagine if Czechoslovaks faced their projections of power onto other nations, their victimhood…
The idea that integrating a nation’s shadow — its repressed, denied, or unacknowledged aspects — might alter the trajectory of tragic historical events is compelling. While it’s true that historical outcomes are shaped by an array of complex factors far beyond the reach of psychological theory alone, there is value in exploring how nations confront their painful truths. Acknowledging past actions, current intentions, and future aspirations could introduce a level of awareness that brings choice into the dynamics of national and international drama.
Imagine if all parties involved in historical conflicts had engaged in collective therapy? Imagine if the Czechoslovaks had examined their own projections of power and their narratives of victimhood. Although it’s speculative, confronting these issues might not have completely dismantled the aggressive pursuits of superpowers and their prey instinct, it could have potentially opened up more options for those involved, offering a sense of agency rather than inevitability.
This notion aligns with Carl Jung’s psychological insight:
“The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside, as fate.”
Jung’s statement suggests that what nations cannot acknowledge internally, they will manifest externally, often perceiving these manifestations as inevitable. If nations, like individuals, gained awareness of their hidden aspects, they might see beyond the seemingly fated paths — like the compulsion for dominance or victimhood — and recognize a broader array of choices available to them. This awareness could lead to a more deliberate shaping of their destinies, rather than being driven by unexamined impulses or historical scripts.
