ABSTRACT
The word 'resistance' will be used here in a restrictive sense, excluding the defence conducted by the authorities through foreign policy, and excluding the military defence. Its purpose is to preserve national independence, or to recover it if it is lost. The enemy is the invader, naturally, but may also include a national government which is timid in the face of threats or servile under occupation. On the other hand, in order to prepare its defence against possible invasion, the government of a neutral state has to adopt military measures and, at the same time, sustain the spirit of resistance within the population while also maintaining correct relations with tomorrow's potential enemy. This ambiguity is reflected in the uncomfortable relations that exist between the public authorities and the advocates of unbridled resistance. The ideal soil for conflict is censorship. The simplistic antithesis'accommodation or resistance' really obscures the fluctuating relations between the state and those resistance idealists who refuse any compromise with the enemy. With the benefit of hindsight, the reactions and arguments of the resistance may be seen as unrealistic or exaggerated. They are a given, which the historian has to accept as an authentic ingredient of public opinion.
