History is rife with examples of soldiers acting as governors. The military has exercised what was in essence civil power from the days of the Roman proconsuls to military commanders of the modern imperialist powers. The former combined military and civil powers in one person while ruling the provinces of the Roman Empire. The latter were often called upon in the nineteenth century to temporarily administer the rapidly expanding colonies. The prevailing image, however, of a modern and benevolent type of military rule over other people is the Allied occupation of conquered territories in Europe and Asia during and after the Second World War. While introducing the first theme of this book, the substitution of civil authorities by military forces, this chapter focuses on the Allied experience in the European theater of war. As the Allied military advance between 1942 and 1945 progressed from North Africa to Italy and from the beaches of Normandy toward Berlin, many of the central dilemmas involved in military occupation in relation to the primary military mission emerged.1 First of all, there was the fundamental debate over civilian or military rule in liberated and occupied territories. Continued and historic reluctance in the United States about soldiers entering the civilian domain is one of the reasons for highlighting the American experience in military government. With the emergence of a specialized military branch for addressing governance came a second choice, either to integrate this ‘civil affairs’ organization into the regular tactical chain of command, or separate it from the combat units as they swept across Europe. Related to the issue of integrated versus segregated civil affairs was the dilemma over direct rule, with a high degree of interference by military personnel in the details of administration of a foreign country, or indirect rule through the local officialdom in the conquered territories. A third question – one that is central to this book – arose after the defeat of Germany. Did soldiers exercise control over civilian populations solely in support of their military mission, as was originally envisioned, or was military governance to become a central aspect of the military mission?