You would expect that people in occupied France or even in besieged London would be rather shabbily dressed and that clearly shows in the documentaries accompanying the two-disc release. But the main characters especially Lino Ventura were shown almost always dressed to the nines. The actors portraying the German soldiers did not look particularly martial. They were rather limp and thin.
share[deleted]
But France, which basically capitulated, was never hurting to the same extent that other occupied countries were.
Uh ? Never heard of shortages and rationing in France during WWII?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartevet.jpg
[deleted]
I refer to the deprivations and rationing and you tell me about collaboration. Sorry, but here I fail to see the connection.
However, if you want to discuss the French collaboration, let's go for it. I've heard often the following statement here in this country: "After WWII, we were all resistants, and after "The Sorrow and the Pity", we were all collaborators". Actually, the truth lies somewhere in between. Collaboration was conveniently forgotten for years, because of Gaullism or because of not wanting to remember the bad things that had happened, the collaborators, the eager anti-Semites, etc. But since the early 1970s, people are obsessed with collaboration. Too obsessed, I would say. When I was studying French history at school, I was taught that 1% of the French were collaborators during the war, and another 1% were resistants (American historian Robert Paxton says it was 2%, whereas John Sweets, who wrote "Choices in Vichy France", estimates, depending on how you define resistance -- people that refused to get off the sidewalk when a German officer passed, or people that whistled during the German newsreels in the cinema theaters, etc. -- that something like 16 or 18% of the population resisted). I admit that 1% of collaborators is "way too much" (even 0.0001% would have been too much in my opinion), but it is still a figure that matches the figures from the other occupied European countries.
That the French legal authorities had a shameful behavior during WWII is alas correct. But on the the other hand, please remember that France ranks third at the Yad Vashem memorial for its high number of people who saved Jews during WWII (a figure easy to check on numerous Web sites). The 3/4 of the Jews who lived in France were actually saved.
Now, you can't get off with a phrase like "True, there were some deprivations and rationing...". Some??? SOME??? It's not exactly what I heard from my grandparents and my parents (who were both children during the war). The deprivations were constant. French people have had to bear rationing until 1949, due to tremendous food and materials shortages.
Here is a link to a remarkable document that I absolutely love: "112 Gripes about the French" ( http://www.e-rcps.com/gripes/ ). It was published in 1945 by the "Information & Education Division" of the US Occupation Forces. I hope the US Army statistics and figures are reliable enough for you. I advise you to read Gripe #106 ("The French got off pretty easy in the war") if you care for figures, but my personal favorite is Gripe #90 ("The black market in France is disgraceful!"): "[...] Why did the black market arise in France? The basic reason for any black market, in France or in any country at war, is that there is a great shortage of certain goods, which people need. Why were (and are) there great shortages in France? Largely because during four years of occupation, the Germans stripped France bare, picked her clean as a bone. (In Marseille, the food depot for the whole south of France, the Germans took 60% of the food that was being shipped in.) And when the Germans left they took along everything they could lay their hands on. [...] The black market in France is not, as it was in America, a market for relative luxuries (gasoline, whiskey, steaks, butter.) In France, no city family could get enough food from the rations doled out by the Germans. (From 1941 to the liberation of Paris in 1944, the Parisians were getting between 1,067 and 1,325 calories of food per day. 2,400 calories a day is considered the necessary minimum for adults not engaged in heavy work. (The average consumption in the United States is 3,367 calories daily. Our army ration provides 4,000 to 5,000 calories a day.) Even with black market purchases, most Frenchmen have not had enough to eat for four years."
I like also Gripe #45 ("The French don't bathe") -- I see it as the origin of the "French people are not clean" myth (something I have never understood, to tell you the truth). It says: "The French don't bathe often enough. They can't. They don't have real soap. They they had no soap worthy of the name since 1940. The Germans took the soap, for four years. That's a long time. The ration for Frenchman today, four months after the war is over, is two cakes of poor ersatz soap per month - 20 grams every two months. Most real soap can only he obtained on the black market, where it costs around 125 francs for 310 grams." Finally, you might want to read also Gripe #39 ("What amazes me is how, with all their stories about suffering, you see so many well-dressed Frenchmen"): "The places we frequent in Paris are comparable to the rich or "touristy" neighborhoods of any big American city -- Fifth Avenue, Michigan Boulevard, Wilshire Boulevard. It is on the Champs Elysees, around l'Opera and on the Boulevard Hausseman that you see those Frenchmen who are well-dressed. It is there, too, that you see those who profit from the inflation and the black market. Some of the Frenchmen who look so well dressed are well dressed only in the places you see. Under a good collar and cuffs, there may be the oldest, most patched-up shirt you ever saw. Socks are made of pieces of old cloth. Underwear is made of anything a person can lay his hands on." So don't you tell me anymore about "some" deprivations!
You might want to read this interesting testimony on the BBC Web site (unless you find the BBC not reliable either): http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/28/a2970128.shtml. Remember this testimony has nothing exceptional, I've heard a lot of people reporting the same things. Note that the woman says that food was scarce and coupons were issued even before the German invasion. A few interesting quotes: "The food situation was pathetic, we only were allowed 1200 calories a day, very little bread, our usual baker took our bread tickets for the whole month and gave us one baguette a day, a little more than our allocation, then, she was caught for being too generous and her shop closed for two weeks. We were without bread for that time. [...] No coffee but a mixture of chicory which was more a laxative than anything else and at one period, no potatoes were available [...] The shortage of textile was also a problem, specially where growing children were concerned. We had a small allocation of coupons but the most ingenious of us would use curtains or blankets to make clothes after they have been dyed a suitable dark colour. Shoes had soles made of wood, the first platform shoes appeared."
I sincerely hope that you find all this useful.
Thank you very much for such lengthy details on the lives of common folks from a very important era which sometimes get clouded by myths and mysteries.
shareYou're welcome , although I think my message was perhaps too lengthy (it is a bad habit I'm afraid).
As you put it, it is really the lives of ordinary people. I still remember what one of my history teachers said when I was attending high school: "Most people really didn't care about being heroes or villains, they had other preoccupations. When you wake up on the morning not knowing if you'll have at least one decent meal during the day or if you'll get a letter from your husband who is detained in a POW camp somewhere in Germany, you don't care so much about the Resistance nor even politics". I've always thought it was very true. To fight the Germans in the Resistance was very brave (and suicidal in most cases), but most people had other things to do or to think about. They probably lacked the strength and the courage, or they simply had families to care about. I know all this looks unremarkable, but we're not talking about mythological heroes here -- just "common folks". And that's what they do.
I remember that when I was living in the US most people didn't realize how it is to live in an occupied country. I never experienced that myself, but at least you can imagine it when you are given the right perspective on things. You have to keep in mind that there was constant rationing for everything you can think of, that there was constant censorship in the media, that there was 1,000,000 men missing because they were POWs, etc., etc., and that life was anything but normal in Nazi occupied Europe. I guess it is very far from the idea some people can have, that the French were patiently waiting to be delivered from Nazism.
"Army of Shadows" is also about ordinary people. That is why it is not an action-packed movie, as the film is not about superhumans.
[deleted]
For your information, Patrick Buisson is a journalist (not a historian) who was once the editor of "Minute" -- "Minute" being the most famous extreme right newspaper published in France (see here, there are even some words on Patrick Buisson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_(French_newspaper) ). Mentioning a book written by a guy who supported French Algeria in the 60s and was brought up by Maurras' followers (don't know who was Charles Maurras? Here's to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurras) isn't exactly the best choice. It shows how much you know on the subject and how serious you are.
In his book, by focusing on the narrow ruling elite, Patrick Buisson would like his readers to believe that the whole of France indulged in a five-year-long orgy, a trick often used precisely by far right theorists to water down Nazism and Nazi occupation of France. There is nothing about the suffering of millions, the hardships of food shortage, the families of the French POWs in Germany. And not one word about the fate of the Jews, which is a little odd for a book dealing with Nazi occupation, don't you think?
As for the so-called "horizontal collaboration", you are making the same mistake as many Frenchmen did just after the war, when women were shaven in the streets of French villages and towns "because they had collaborated with a German soldier". Oh yes, having sex (and sometimes being genuinely in love) was indeed a dreadful crime, much more than, say, killing or betraying a resistant or sending Jews to concentration camps (I'm joking of course).
In my opinion, to have sex with a man belonging to an occupation force and to be a collaborator are most the time two very different things. Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that sleeping with the enemy is a good thing. But let's be realistic. In a country where most of the young men are away (because they are either prisoners or forced workers, or fighting in a different place) and where thousands of soldiers stay sometimes for years to fight or just "to keep peace", such things happen. It is only human. All people are not paragons of virtue. Look at what happened in Korea or in Vietnam: yes, the American soldiers left hundreds (if not thousands) of babies behind them. Would you also call all the Korean and Vietnamese prostitutes, all the raped women (because this happens too, right?) and all the women who have had affairs with American GIs "collaborators"? And what would you say then about all the German women who have had affairs with the French forced workers sent to Germany during WWII? Were they "traitors" too?
Next time check your sources, you will avoid such gross mistakes.
The reason why I like mentioning American and British historians is that you can check their works because 1) they are in English (no dirty tricks here) and 2) because they are such authorities on WWII you can read excerpts of their works and interviews they gave to have a better idea. It's only fair. Plus I like these historians because they have generally a "cold" approach of Vichy France and a very balanced point of view.
Why not relying on the works of Robert O. Paxton and British scholar Julian Jackson? Julian Jackson's name comes to my mind because I have come across one of his articles published recently in a French magazine called "L'Histoire" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Histoire ) where he stated that the Belgians and the Dutch had comparatively more food during the war than the French because the Nazis would send most of the French agricultural products directly to their own country (hence proving that Pétain's policy of "preservation" through collaboration was a complete failure).
Why contradicting such authorities? Is that such a problem to you that most of the French were ordinary people whom most of them did suffer during WWII? (Apparently it is!)
And once again you are mixing everything up. Would I ever compare France and Poland's fates during WWII? Of course I wouldn't (and never did). First of all, comparisons are pointless. Imagine saying to the Burmese right now that they don't suffer that much since the North Korean situation is much worse than theirs. They would tell you to p*ss off (I know that my example is probably not the best one, but I can't think of a better one right now). Then I never stated that the French suffered more than the Poles (why always bringing the Poles in the conversation by the way? I thought it was a thread on France!). Eastern Europe has had a different history than Western Europe during WWII, we all know that. The Nazis considered the Poles (and the Russians too) as "untermenschen" and treated them accordingly. Had the French (and the Belgians, the Dutch...) been treated the same way, they would have propably risen against the Nazis in large numbers much earlier. It was when the Nazis recruited for forced labor in Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_du_travail_obligatoire (and not "for Wehrmacht duty on the Eastern Front -- boy, what mistakes!!!) that more people joined the Maquis. Yes, you always need a spark to start a fire. I bet that the Polish resistants were scarce back in October 1939.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
No, the lady thinks she can educate people like you.
By the way, next time, provide us with some sound arguments, not just beliefs to vent your anti-French sentiment.
[deleted]
I would suggest you to calm down a little and to read at least what I wrote. Once again you are making assumptions which have little to do with reality and facts.
To start with, if you had read my previous messages (now I seriously doubt you have), you would have realized that I'm not a supporter of whatever you may believe. My second post on this thread was clear enough, I think. Here is to refresh your memory (if you care to read this time, that is), although I hate to quote myself:
"However, if you want to discuss the French collaboration, let's go for it. "I've heard often the following statement here in this country: "After WWII, we were all resistants, and after "The Sorrow and the Pity", we were all collaborators". Actually, the truth lies somewhere in between. Collaboration was conveniently forgotten for years, because of Gaullism or because of not wanting to remember the bad things that had happened, the collaborators, the eager anti-Semites, etc. But since the early 1970s, people are obsessed with collaboration. Too obsessed, I would say. When I was studying French history at school, I was taught that 1% of the French were collaborators during the war, and another 1% were resistants (American historian Robert Paxton says it was 2%, whereas John Sweets, who wrote "Choices in Vichy France", estimates, depending on how you define resistance -- people that refused to get off the sidewalk when a German officer passed, or people that whistled during the German newsreels in the cinema theaters, etc. -- that something like 16 or 18% of the population resisted). I admit that 1% of collaborators is "way too much" (even 0.0001% would have been too much in my opinion), but it is still a figure that matches the figures from the other occupied European countries.
That the French legal authorities had a shameful behavior during WWII is alas correct. But on the the other hand, please remember that France ranks third at the Yad Vashem memorial for its high number of people who saved Jews during WWII (a figure easy to check on numerous Web sites). The 3/4 of the Jews who lived in France were actually saved."
In other words (before you state that the French are unable to face their shameful past), it seems that my history teachers were even harsher that some of the best authorities on Vichy France when they tackled the subject of resistance.
I have not hidden from the very start that France, far from the Gaullist myth that has prevailed for 30 years or so after WWII, was not a nation of resistants. But it was not a nation of collaborators either. I know this is probably a huge disappointment to you, but it seems that 95% of the French were not exactly preoccupied with neither collaboration nor resistance during the war. You can blame them for that if you will, I have absolutely no problem with that. I understand it may be shocking to realize that in a part of occupied Europe life went on, under harsh conditions, no doubt, but still went on.
I don't know why you cling so much to the idea that the French were all collaborators or where you got the idea that the French were favored by the Nazis during the war. Does that make you feel more comfortable about yourself or/and the world in general? Is it convenient to think this way in order to vent some anti-French sentiment? Or do you never challenge any of your beliefs? No doubt that the situation in Eastern Europe was worse, for the reasons I have exposed in my previous post (I've never said the contrary). The Nazis showed no mercy at populations considered as "Untermenschen" while they led a different policy in Northern and Western Europe (please note that the scope is much broader than just France for that matter). It doesn't mean that life in these latter countries was enjoyable.
By the way, I was the very first one to mention "The Sorrow and the Pity" in the conversation, and it would be nice to stop patronizing people you don't know (it's risky). For your information, I have watched "The Sorrow and the Pity" twice already, and will probably watch it another couple of times before I die. I have also watched "L'œil de Vichy" directed by the late Claude Chabrol, and many others. I have no problem with Ophuls' documentary, except that it was made in 1969. As you may know, historiography has made some progress since the end of the 60s, and there are constantly new studies/new findings on Vichy France (or any other given subject, as a matter of fact) that have reshaped or reassessed what we know about that period. Maybe it's time for you to move on and to deepen your knowledge.
You will find an interesting note on Robert Paxton on this page: http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1999/9903/9903ANN3.CFM, and you will see that his works are not necessarily in contradiction with Ophuls' documentary (far from that). But I trust him for the accuracy of his findings and analysis. "The Sorrow and the Pity", as good as it is, is not a global approach of France during WWII and is not the most balanced work you can find on the subject.
As for Patrick Buisson, if I'd ever wanted to attack him, I would have called him a Fascist. The guy comes from the far right -- it is not an accusation, it is a fact. If you can read French or German, here is his biography: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Buisson. If you can't, names like "Le Pen", "Front National", "Charles Maurras" should be clear enough. Patrick Buisson is known today as one of Sarkozy's advisors, which has stirred a scandal in this country. Belonging to the extreme extreme right since his youth, born from parents whose behavior during the occupation was more than shady, he was director, as I wrote already, of one of the most disgusting French extreme right rags ("Minute") before being one of Sarkozy's advisors for communication and public opinion. Part of the scandal is that he is also now running an opinion survey firm, working mostly for Sarkozy, with doubtful methodology and scandalous fees, paid with French taxes (a good portrayal of Buisson is here : http://www.telerama.fr/idees/patrick-buisson-un-conseiller-du-presiden t-tres-a-droite,49134.php -- sorry, it's in French, but things like "extrême droite" and "droite nationale" should be clear enough). Now, I understand that Buisson's fame has not reached America -- and it is a very good thing, because he is not exactly someone we are proud of, but as I wrote in my previous message, if you would like to learn something on occupied France, there are much better choices. Next time we should invite Faurisson (a notorious revisionist) to debate on judaism. And I can imagine with what relish Buisson wrote about such notorious left-wing intellectuals like Sartre and de Beauvoir. Actually, Buisson's biggest discovery seems to be that the French have had sex during the war. Wow. I have another scoop: thousands of French babies were born during the war. As if you expected people to live like monks during 4 or 5 years. Yes, I know it is shocking, but life went on. But most of the time not in a pleasant way.
By the way, that a part of the French ruling elite was misled is a well known and well documented fact now. Everywhere, leaders and intellectuals were fascinated by Nazism. King Edward VIII had sympathy for the Nazis, but does that mean that all the British were Nazi followers? Of course not. Nobel Prize winner Knut Hamsun was a Hitler's admirer, but does that mean that all the Norwegians were collaborators? Of course not. Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford had sympathy for the Nazis, but does that mean that...? Ooops.
If you care so much about far right writers, I would advise you to read Céline instead. As hateful as he was, at least the guy had talent.
If you care so much for figures, here is a useful link: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6142
I'll come back in a couple of hours because there are still a couple of things I would like to make clear. (To be continued...)
I'm glad you found out about the SS Division Charlemagne, it seems that your knowledge about forced labor, forced enlistment in the Wehrmacht and volunteering were quite blurry. I'm sure you have noticed the impressive numbers mentioned on the Web page you referred to: "From 7,340 at its peak in 1944, the strength of the division fell to sixty men in May 1945." Let me remind you that the total French population amounted to 40 millions at that time. Let me remind you also that there Waffen SS Divisions formed in each country occupied by the Nazis. While you were at it, you should have browsed more Wikipedia pages, you would have found this:
A non exhaustive estimate of the total of over 350,000 non-German volunteers and conscripts in the Waffen SS and their units is shown below:
Albanian 3,000 - 21st SS Division
Belgian: Flemish 23,000 - 5th SS Div., 27th SS Div.
Belgium: Walloon 15,000 -5th SS Div., 28th SS Div.
British Commonwealth (English) 50 - The British Freikorps
Bulgaria 1,000 in the Bulgarisches Reg.
Croatia (includes Bosnian Muslims) 30,000 7th SS Div., 13th SS Hanshar Div., 23rd SS Div.
Denmark 10,000 in Freikorps Danemark, 11th SS Div.
India 3,500 in the Volunteer Legion
Estonia 20,000 in the 20th SS Div.
Finland 1,000 in a Volunteer Battalion.
Hungarians 15,000 in the 25th SS Div., 26th SS Div. 33rd SS Div.
Latvia 39,000 in the Latvian Legion.
Netherlands 50,000 in the 23rd SS Div., 34th SS Div.
Norway 6,000 in the 5th SS Div., 6th SS Div., 11th SS Div.
France 8,000 33rd SS Div.
Italy 20,000 in the 29th SS Div.
Portuguese Volunteers
Russian (Belorussian) 12,000 29th SS Div., 30th SS Div.
Russian (Cossack) 40,000 - 1st Cossack Division
Russian (Turkic) 8,000 Ostürkische SS, Tatarishe SS
Rumania 3,000 Waffen-Grenadierregiment der SS (rumänisches 1)
Serbia 15,000 Volunteer Corps
Spain 1,000 Spanische-Freiwilligen-Kompanie der SS 101, The Blue Division
Sweden, Switzerland & Luxemburg 3,000 5th SS Div., 11th SS Div.
Ukraine 25,000 in the 14th SS Div.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS_foreign_volunteers_and_conscrip ts
So here the figure given for the French volunteers and conscripts is 8,000. It is worth comparing this with the figures regarding much smaller countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Latvia or Denmark, for instance. I think that it gives a pretty good idea of the extent of the French support to the Waffen SS.
Speaking of the Waffen SS and Wikipedia, there are other interesting facts. On the global page about the Waffen SS, the section on war crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#War_crimes) shows that, out of 13 massacres ("most famous incidents") mentioned, 5 of them took place in France (there is a mistake regarding Wormhoudt -- it is located in France, near Dunkirk, and not in Belgium. It is close to the place where I was born, that's how I know ). Oradour massacre is simply the largest killing of civilians that ever took place in Western Europe during WWII. Would you call that "mild" too?
I have noticed that there were no Polish divisions in the Waffen SS. So I gather that the Poles are perfect people and the rest of Europe is not. More seriously, we are dealing with the largest resistance movement from all over Europe. Look, every other armed resistance movement pales in comparison to the Polish armed resistance. But at the same time, some 90% of the Polish Jews were exterminated, when 3/4 of the French Jews were saved. How illuminating is this? Then again, the context could be different from a country to another one.
Once again, I don't want to imply that the French suffered more than their neighbors or any other European nation. I don't mean to compare hardships and sufferings. But they were not spared either. And when it comes to uprising and rebellion, the French have a pretty good tradition too (1789, 1830, 1848, 1870... and no I won't mention the mutinies during WWI ). So the French lack of reaction (for a while) has probably other reasons than the "tradition" or the "natural tendencies" of a nation.
Now, the "112 Gripes". The story behind the "Gripes" is that by the Fall of 1945, some American gallups had revealed that there were more Americans who felt more sympathy towards the Germans than towards the French (speaking of traditions...). I would like to know why by the way, but that's another matter I believe. Besides, there were increasing tensions between the American service men and the French population. So it was decided to publish a leaflet for the American GIs posted in France so that they could address the cultural differences and their own prejudice. Nothing more, nothing less. It was not meant for a larger audience. So, yes, it was an attempt to present the French under a better light, but most of it (if you read it) is simply common sense, plus I can't see why the US Army would have used false figures and statistics. You may not trust the US Army, but then it's more your problem than mine. The interesting thing is that the Americans actually collected statistics than can no longer be found, or when there are other sources, they match the commonly admitted figures (such as: "(French) Military casualties: Killed.....200,000 -- Wounded....230,000" -- it is close to what you find in other accounts on WWII). Gripe #97 (excerpts): "It is also worth remembering that in the 1945 draft, the French had to reject 40% of the men called up as physically unfit for military duty. and the standards used were lower than those used in our army.) Why were so many young Frenchmen unfit physically? Because they were underfed by the Germans during the occupation. Because tuberculosis and other diseases spread, during the four years of German occupation. Because of the effects of World War I. [...] Because the best French youth were killed, wounded, disabled, or taken as slave laborers into Germany." The American statistics regarding food rationing match also the other sources I could find on the subject (Gripe #90: "From 1941 to the liberation of Paris in 1944, the Parisians were getting between 1,067 and 1,325 calories of food per day. 2,400 calories a day is considered the necessary minimum for adults not engaged in heavy work. Here is another source: http://fh.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/262.full -- I hope that the Oxford University Press is reliable enough for you. Excerpt: "That France suffered more than any other nation in Western Europe under Nazi Occupation in terms of food rations is well known. (Maybe not enough.) League of Nations figures on the average calorific value of normal adult rations show that French rations offered less nourishment than those in any other Western country, averaging 1180 calories per day over the period 1941–44, compared with 1400 calories per day in Belgium, 1800 per day in the Netherlands, and over 1900 per day in Germany. Italy was worse off, even as a German ally until September 1943, as was most of Eastern Europe under the German Occupation." It seems that the Information & Education Division of the US Occupation Forces was right.
Still calling that "mild"?
Finally, the book by Frederic Spotts seems to be a very interesting one (and less tainted by ideology than Buisson's work, but it is hardly surprising). While browsing the Net when looking for some information on this particular book, I found this interesting review (http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2008/11/france-intellectuals-paris) which begins as: "What happens when artists, writers and intellectuals are looking down the barrel of a gun? How should the members of what Frederic Spotts calls the "artistic community" behave if and when they find themselves under occupation by a hostile enemy conqueror? The question is no doubt being asked now in Baghdad, but it was last posed most directly in western Europe in Paris in 1940, when an entire generation of artists and intellectuals who, until then, had prided themselves on leading the intellectual capital of the world found themselves under Nazi occupation. So, what to do? Publish what you think and possibly be shot? Stay silent and be accused of passive collaboration? Or collaborate and simply be damned?
It is somewhat reassuring to discover, as The Shameful Peace shows, that there were no easy answers to this dilemma." While I doubt the comparison with contemporary Baghdad is an apt one ("hostile enemy conqueror"? The US forces? Uh?), I can only understand the questions. I've been asking the same questions all my life, and I'm afraid there is no answer. I don't have the faintest idea of what I would do in such a situation, and I don't think anyone really does.
Oh, à propos, I am not "pro French", I am French, and for that matter I have studied extensively French history at school and university. I admit that not all French people are knowledgeable about the history of their own country, but most of the time people know rather well what happened during WWII. When I was living in the US, I was appalled by the little knowledge most Americans had about European history, but then I can't really blame them for it is not the history of their own land. Although I would strengthen some curricula, to tell you the truth!
As for the previous (brief) reference to my grand-parents and parents, I should have left that aside. My mistake. Debates like this should never get personal. That's why I usually never refer to anything related to my family (at least not on an open forum) nor I use "you"(=the Americans, or the British) or "we"(=the French). I only represent myself here.
Sorry for the lengthy messages, but I felt I had to find evidence for each single point, since you implied I could be dishonest. Hoping you will find all this useful --
"In my opinion, to have sex with a man belonging to an occupation force and to be a collaborator are most the time two very different things."--Madame "Grande" Marguerite
What the rest of the world saw as "horizontal collaboration" you see as "L'Amour," and if your boyfriends and(!)/or husbands happen to be in prison camps, forced labor, or dead? Well... (Gallic shrug).
How trés, trés FRENCH of you.
Dégoût!
Historians of occupied France generally make a distinction between two different forms of collaboration:
- "State collaboration" - a pragmatic political and economic cooperation with Nazi Germany with the immediate aim of safeguarding French interests and the longer-term aim of securing a better position for France in a post-war Europe dominated by Germany,
- "collaborationism" - an ideologically-motivated cooperation with a Nazi Germany seen as the only bulwark against the spread of bolshevism in Europe.
(No doubt that both were failures.)
Now, how does having sex with a soldier fit in these definitions? Once again, did all these women kill people? Betrayed others? Send anyone to concentrations camps? Was sex ideological?
And let me repeat what I wrote the other day: I am not saying that sleeping with the enemy is a good thing, but let's be realistic. By the way I have never said it had something to do with "love". You know, what starving people would do for some food is sometimes amazing. Disgraceful, loathsome, shameful... yes. But understandable.
And again:
In a country where most of the young men are away (because they are either prisoners or forced workers, or fighting in a different place) and where thousands of soldiers stay sometimes for years to fight or just "to keep peace", such things happen. It is only human. All people are not paragons of virtue. Look at what happened in Korea or in Vietnam. Would you also call all the Korean and Vietnamese prostitutes, all the raped women (because this happens too, right?) and all the women who have had affairs with American GIs "collaborators"? And what would you say then about all the German women who have had affairs with the French forced workers sent to Germany during WWII? Would you call them "traitors" too?
Further reading (a very interesting article indeed:http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jun/05/women-victims-d-day -landings-second-world-war). Since reading gives you headaches, here is a short excerpt: "Churchill's private secretary Jock Colville recorded his reactions to one such scene (when witnessing public head-shaving of so-called "women collaborators" in 1944 or 1945). "I watched an open lorry drive past, to the accompaniment of boos and catcalls from the French populace, with a dozen miserable women in the back, every hair on their heads shaved off. They were in tears, hanging their heads in shame. While disgusted by this cruelty, I reflected that we British had known no invasion or occupation for some 900 years. So we were not the best judges."
Plus name me just one occupied country where such a thing has never happened.
For your information, about 800,000 children were born to mothers across Europe who were perceived to have been sleeping "with the enemy". In Norway, more than 10,000 babies were born to German fathers. Heinrich Himmler actively encouraged the German troops to have liaisons with Norwegian women. Each child in this "experiment" was given a number and the Germans offered support for the births. But after the war, many of the so-called Lebensborn ("Fountain of Life") children were treated with cruelty.
And see what happened in Naples after WWII with the rise of prostitution. But since this time it involved American service men and not Wehrmacht soldiers, I guess it is not as despicable in your eyes.
The rest of the world does not necessarily think the same way as some Americans do. You would be surprised.
[deleted]
When one's husband or boyfriend is in the forest fighting, or in prison being tortured, or dead, one normalement doesn't go to bed with the responsible party. Except, apparently, in France, where according to Madame it IS ONLY HUMAN.
Your endless rationalizations cannot mask that simple, elemental PRINCIPLE.
The French women could have taken things in their own hands (so to speak), or hooked up together, or hell, try to seduce a priest. All three "techniques à faire face" were alluded to in "Léon Morin, Prêtre." But no, that WOULD BE TOO MUCH OF A SACRIFICE, APPARENTLY.
Before you trot out some more of your moldy "scholarship" in defense of the indefensible, let me give you a piece of good ol' Texas wisdom, honey: when you're in a hole, QUIT DIGGIN'.
Your endless assumptions and generalizations are missing just one point: that all these women were not married or engaged to someone.
And about the men, you forget about all those who were POWs (more than one million) or forced to work for the Germans, i.e. who were not in an enjoyable situation, but not tortured nor bound to be killed.
Many French women did "take things in their own hands". See Mathilde in "Army of Shadows", or women like Lucie Aubrac or Danielle Casanova or Germaine Tillion to name just a few.
You seem to assume that every French woman slept with a German soldier during WWII. A large majority did not.
And yes, I believe that most human behaviors can be explained.
You missed my drift. Barny "took things into her own hands" with a piece of wood, as confessed to Fr. Morin. I'm not saying that every woman had to be a Lucie Aubrac. Just keep your hands off the oppressor.
***
To explain a human behavior does not justify it. One can explain why Hitler sought to exterminate European Jewry. Does that justify it?
***
France? A nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Not if your attitude is representative and I believe it is. Theroux had it right about the French: "unprincipled, insincere, and unreliable." That goes double for the so-called fairer sex.
Did I justify anything? No, I provided some explanations and a context.
For the third time: I am not saying that sleeping with the enemy is a good thing, but let's be realistic (or let's face things). Nothing more, nothing less.
I guess you are perfection itself to be so judgemental.
Too bad that DJRainer deleted his/her posts, because he/she was right about Theroux and your racist assumptions. Not to mention your sexist remarks, on top of everything else.
Remember: insults are used when you lack arguments. They reflect badly on the people who use them.
[deleted]
Unless you have something more clever/interesting to say on the subject, I consider our discussion over.
shareI accept your unconditional surrender, as would be entirely appropriate, given the topic.
shareFunny, I was expecting this.
Don't be mistaken: it is not a "surrender", as you put it, it is just because you deserve despise and nothing but.
Let the readers of this thread be judges: they'll know well enough what kind of person you are at once. I understand that you need the Net to vent your xenophobic feelings while being unable to debate over anything -- you're not the only one -- but I'm not a shrink nor would I want to serve as an excuse for your distasteful behavior any longer. If you like to make a fool of yourself, it is your problem, not mine, and certainly you don't need me for this.
I put you on my ignore list from this moment on, so don't waste your time with an answer.
[deleted]
Don't feel obliged to go on this discussion if you don't feel like it.
I admit I became a little too impassioned at first. But see what happens each time someone tries to clear up some misconceptions about occupied France. The subject attracts bigots like a magnet. By doing this, I know I expose myself to insults (and to make things worse, I don't even hide my citizenship -- my English being not perfect, I think people would notice rather rapidly that it's not my mother tongue). I usually react when I see crap about France (and perhaps Europe in general) and on this Web site there is plenty. But once in a while, you meet fairly honest people and it proves that this is not a complete waste of time (plus it is a way to practise my English). And sometimes I learn things in the process, when I look for evidence to make a point.
At least I do believe that you can disagree over a serious subject without insulting your contradictor, but unfortunately the Net is a like a henhouse (you know, the place where chickens breed). Anonymity does wonders when it comes to sling mud at someone.
As for Pétain, I'll never find an excuse for what he did. To think that the guy was a womanizer, that he was a brothels' customer and he was the champion of "pro-natality pro-family return-women-to-the-home" propaganda makes me sick (sorry, but here I react as a woman). And you've probably heard of the recent findings that he was indeed as anti-Semitic as could be, that he often implemented German commands with more zeal than had been requested.
Perhaps Vichy regime preserved Paris. I just don't know what to think: without Pétain, France would never have been the world's most visited country? Uh!
I read critics (in French) of Buisson's work. While his book is full of quotes, he only quotes collaborationist newspapers. An honest historian would have refer to all types of sources, given the subject. And in implying that life in Paris was "one big romp", he avoids discussing the real responsibilities, or rather he adopts pretty much Pétain's stance ("Our defeat came from our slackness. The pleasure principle has destroyed the spirit of sacrifice has built up. I urge you, first of all, to undertake an intellectual and moral reform." -- Pétain's address to the French, 25 June 1940). The problem with Patrick Buisson is that he is certainly very knowledgeable on WWII, but he distorts real facts to support his reactionary theories. And he is probably tendentious in what he does not show.
I tend to avoid this kind of literature precisely because it is tendentious, meant to water down the reality of Occupation in one way or another (and in the end to promote far right ideas).
Web sites in English rarely mention that Patrick Buisson comes from the far right and that he is not a historian.
That's very unfortunate, because it is something worth knowing.
[deleted]
I do wish the two of you would take your pas de deux offline, you both prattle on ad nauseum, one quoting the right-winger Buisson, the other the left-winger Paxton.
Ah, but we have a neutral third party, the left-leaning writer Paul Theroux, who has traveled the world and met all types of people.
Here's his take: in "The Happy Isles of Oceania" he wrote "the French are unprincipled, insincere and unreliable."
Could the two of you be as concise as Theroux? On behalf of the fans of Army of Shadows, I thank you.
P.S. The idiot French President Sarkozy (<<The Emperor with no clothes,>> in the view of the Americans, according to the Wikileaks cables) apparently believes that Alsace-Lorraine is part of Germany. Is it any wonder that France is in the merde? Mon Dieu!
Thank you for your clever comments. Is that short enough? And yes, that's ironical. Since the French are unreliable (how racist is that, by the way?), you're not obliged to believe me.
Just like you're not obliged to read anything. If you are bored by our discussion, just skip it.
P.S.: Sarkozy has no culture, it is a well-known fact. Glad you've just found out. And before saying anything clever on people who elect such uneducated guys, let me remind you that "W" was not exactly the most refined of gentlemen either.
[deleted]
At least you've made some research to find this one. Thank you, and bonsoir.
share[deleted]
I think you should have written two different messages. I didn't realize at first that there was some stuff for me in your post, nor would I think that "Buffalo something" will read what you have to say (or won't he/she)?
Gripe #7: ""We can't rely on these French." That depends on what you mean by "rely". If you expect the French to react like Americans, you will be disappointed. They are not Americans; they are French.[...]" That's why I like the "112 Gripes", it is full of common sense . And it is funny (or sad) to see that there's nothing new under the sun, really.
Anyway, Sartre certainly pales in front of Camus and some others. I actually came across his sentence the other day. Too bad for such an "engagé" writer. But Sartre was pretty blind too when it came to the Soviet Union (until he found out the truth, which certainly took him some time). Again, that the European ruling elites got off pretty easy during the war is nothing new, but has little to do with what most people experienced every day.
And again, when Arletty (who was one of the top French actresses of the time) slept with a Nazi officer, I can't see how it would turn her as a collaborator, for she never sent anyone to the concentration camps. Now, that you may find her behavior disgraceful is more a matter of opinion than anything else I think.
OK, since it is very late here, I would like to draw your attention on this: http://historytoday.prod.acquia-sites.com/blog/news-blog/kathryn-hadle y/international-colloquium-sheds-new-light-denunciation-france-during- se and more on the very same subject at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/3543112/Petty- disputes-led-to-Nazi-denunciation-in-WWII-France.html.
Henri-Georges Clouzot had captured the very essence of denouncement in his film "Le Corbeau", which was hated by both the Nazis and the French Resistance after the Liberation. If you like old movies, you should not miss this one.
One of our public channels broadcasts once in a while a miniseries (that will eventually turn into a large series) which is a very good one on WWII (the first time I find that a French series match its American counterparts!). More here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5423276/French -TV-series-confronts-reality-of-wartime-collaboration.html. I don't know if you can lay your hands on one of these DVDs abroad, but it's really worth watching it.
[deleted]
I know some people have this caricature of the French as rather small and somewhat effete which I have not found to be true. I am thinking of the usually barrel chested fishermen of Marseille. Most Bretons are tall and big boned. And of course, many people from Alsace are of German descent and even speak Deutsch. That's why I blame the people in charge of casting. They didn't try very hard in getting the right "extras."
share