Occupation can be understood as war‐induced foreign rule that disempowers statehood. In its regulative presence, occupation does not only resort to its own authorities and personnel, but also to the administrations of the occupied countries. They thus mutate into executive organs of occupation policy measures. If one thinks of the Second World War, local administrations were equally involved in the provision of labour for the German armaments industry as in the murder of the Jewish population or the supply of food under conditions of shortage.

In historical research on the Second World War, the structures of the German occupation administration are now generally considered to be well researched. The situation is different though considering local administrations as transmission belts of German occupation policies. Additional research is required, particularly considering the involvement of municipal and local administrations in the community's social framework. As such, local administrations became the addressees of participation desires that were expressed under occupation conditions in terms of basic services, e.g., food supply or health care, but also in the form of denunciations or petitions for the purpose of enriching themselves on Jewish property. Occupation rule can be thus understood as a specific form of social practice.

Local administrations, serving as executive authorities, played a crucial role in maintaining German rule. Nevertheless, they also pursued their own interests. For the members of the occupied societies, this meant that they were confronted with native forces in the offices, authorities, and police, and thus, in a sense, with their "own" people. In the case of the Netherlands, it was shown early on that occupation policy measures met with greater acceptance when they were implemented by native and thus, in the eyes of the population, "trustworthy" Dutch officials. The same was true for other occupied territories.

By understanding occupation as a social process and by asking questions about the social embeddedness of employees of authorities, administrations and police forces, the conference wants to contribute to a deeper understanding of the everyday realities of occupied societies. We are particularly interested in understanding the negotiation processes that took place in the administrations and the demands which were expressed to them. In addition, there are further questions, among them: What measures and policies did local government officials try to implement? What room for manoeuvre was opened up by the occupation, and how did they use it? More generally, where and to what extent were officials integrated into the local social fabric? What consequences resulted from this? Last but not least: How did the gender-related aspects of administrative action under occupation unfold?

The conference will explore these questions in four sections. The focus is on two sections dealing with occupations in the years of the Second World War. Another section is comparative and focuses on occupations beyond the years 1939‐1945. Finally, in a fourth section we ask how museums and exhibitions address the history of occupation and the impact of local administration on the everyday life of occupied societies.