Sarkozy revises the last war

World War Two ended 63 years ago but it sometimes seems that Nicolas Sarkozy does not want France to emerge from its shadow. The President used Thursday's celebration of victory day to try once again to revise the history of France's four-year occupation by the Nazis.

Sarko went to the spot on the Normandy coast where 177 French commandos landed with British forces on D-Day to celebrate what he said was the true story of France's war. "Real France was not at Vichy. It was not collaborating," said the President. "Real France, eternal France, had the voice of General de Gaulle. Its face was that of the resistance." 

"We are not celebrating a military victory, we are above all celebrating a moral victory," he added, with military flags snapping in the breeze on the landing beach at Ouistreham.

Sarko's speech at his first VE day ceremony was in line with his doctrine that France as a nation has no guilt to bear over the years when the puppet government based at Vichy collaborated with the Nazis and sent thousands of Jews to their deaths. France must shed its "culture of repentance", Sarkozy argued in his election campaign last year. "France never committed a crime against humanity" during the occupation, he said.

Sarko wants to restore the healing fiction that was adopted by de Gaulle in the aftermath of war and followed by every president until Jacques Chirac in 1995.This held that "real France" resisted the occupation and that the Vichy state was a criminal aberration. That's why there has been such a fuss over the current Paris exhibition of wartime photography, including on this blog.

Even in the early 1990s, Francois Mitterrand, the Socialist president who for a time worked as a senior Vichy official, still insisted that France had no reason to seek pardon. "France did nothing. Vichy was not France," Mitterrand said.

That doctrine had really evaporated by the mid-1970s after historians and film-makers helped the country face up to the darker truth. Chirac endorsed the prevailing view when he won the presidency in 1995. He acknowledged the responsibility of France, not just a band of traitors, in the deportations. "France, the homeland of light and human rights ... did irreparable damage," said Chirac.

Sarkozy started imposing his new doctrine on the day that he took office by visiting the place where Guy Môquet a 17-year-old resistant, was shot by the Nazis in 1941. He proclaimed Môquet a national hero and ordered his last letter to his parents to be read out annually in French schools.

Sarkozy's line is that the Holocaust must be commemorated in its context. He caused a stir a few months ago by decreeing that every 11-year-old must "adopt" the memory of a deported Jewish child (The order was quietly dropped after an outcry). In Normandy on Thursday, he said that "no wrong, no crime must be forgotten", but insisted that these were not committed by France.

Sarkozy wants to restore national pride and he uses history as a tool. Many historians fault his references, accusing him  -- and Henri Guaino, his ideas man -- of manipulating the past. Henri Russo, an historian, wrote in Libération, that for Mr Sarkozy "the past has become a depository of political resources where everyone can pick what they want to serve their interests".

Marc Lambron, a novelist who is about to publish a book on Sarko, was saying on the radio this morning that Sarko treats history like a DJ samples music. His new fondness for de Gaulle, according to Lambron, springs from his own nostalgia for his 1960s childhood in the comfortable prosperity of the general's presidency. The 1968 street revolt, now being celebrated ad nauseam, ended that. That's why Sarko hates May 1968 and campaigned to "liquidate its legacy" last year.

Sarkozy has been doing other odd things this week. He delivered an inexplicably harsh diatribe against Chirac, his former boss and fellow Gaullist, at a session with his parliamentary party. Chirac did nothing in his 12-year presidency,said Sarko. The speech appalled Chirac loyalists in the Union for a Popular Movement, the one-time Gaullist party which Sarkozy inherited from his predecessor. The president also blamed the media for his own unpopularity.  He did not just attack the usual leftwing targets but went for establishment, generally pro-Sarko, outlets, including L'Express magazine, Agence France-Presse, the national news agency, and le Journal du Dimanche. That newspaper is owned by Arnaud Lagardère, a friend of the president. One day later, Jacques Esperandieu, editor of that newspaper, was fired. 

Comments

[Ros]

This blog seems to be a sort of continuation of "Paris wasn't so bad under the nazis" but I don't really see what Charles is getting at. Obviously, ALL the French were not collabos neither were they ALL resistants. In a way Sarko was right when he said "France never committed a crime against humanity" during the occupation," it was not FRANCE who did this but PETAIN. As I said before, anyone who wants to know all about this should get hold of a DVD of the film "Le Chagrin et La Pitié".
Sarko's treatment of Chirac is quite disgraceful - I didn't care much for the latter but after all he was a lifelong friend of Sarko & it was HIS party who got him in.

[Monika]

An interesting documentary was just aired a few days on arte on Vichy.
You can watch it again o arte-tv

Beiträge: 109

Letztes Jahr in Vichy
« am: 08. Mai 2008, 18:47 »

http://plus7.arte.tv/de/detailPage/1697660,CmC=2008282,CmPage=1697660.html
Unfortunately I didn't find the French version of it but I keep looking. When I find it I'll post it here.

I think the debate about France being innocent despite Vichy or France being guilty because of Vichy will never end because we will have to take into account hypothesises on how history would have evolved if this or that happened. Hypothesises like if Vichy would have resisted the last free part of France would have been occupied (in the end they were).

[Christine]

A few monthes back, Sarkozy's speech would have created a huge controversy, and raised anger and disaproval from historians, intellectuals and editorialists. Today's lack of reaction is strikening. I wonder if it is out of exhaustion from having to be angry all the time at Sarkozy's numerous rewritings of history, or if no one bothers anymore with whatever he is saying. Or is it that we are passively (and somewhat cynically) accepting Sarkozy's view, i.e. history is nothing but a story that can and should be adjusted to political realities?
By the way, Esperandieu's firing was in the air for a time now; you seem to imply Sarkozy has something to do with it, but it does not seem to be the case (at least this time).

[azloon]

a few days ago, after i read of NS's comments on VE day, i wrote the following to a friend on this blog:

[Everyone/nation seems to want to claim victory for themselves.

"the eternal france?" i mean, gimme a break.

how many Republiques have they had already? i think 1789 may have been the 'high water' mark for france at least in terms of revolutionary spirit and bravery.

'france celebrates a military victory.' clever how [NS] avoids saying 'OUR military victory,' which of course there was none.]

thanks, CB, for affirming what i was suspecting about sarko's remarks: 'revisionism' of the first magnitude.

no county, imo, can 'move on' until proper amends are made. sarko may think this is a sign of weakness, but he is misguided. proper amends in the case of france would be memorialization of specific locations in france where atrocities were initiated, perhaps even an official commission whose task is to enumerate, in great detail, all the instances of ordinary french complicity in nazi occupation. get it all out on the table. a chapter on Mitterand would probably be a good idea. i am certain there have been many private attempts to paint the true story (Ophuls?), but official government recognition can bring a degree of closure which will allow debate to subside.

when a nation tries to 'shuck and jive,' i.e. 'dance' around an issue as large and complex as 'conspiracy with the enemy,' it is asking for trouble, and for a debate that will never go away. France's ambivalence about this subject was brought to light in the sarko letter-reading proposal for french school kids. the country seems to want, at some level, to do the right thing, but just can't 'do the whole deal."

it sounds to me as if france has yet to adequately purge it's soul of this cancer of shame which won't seem to go into remission.

i also noticed not a word in sarko's VE remarks about the nations that bore the brunt of defeating the nazis.

France can still be a proud nation while at the same time acknowledging its past sins (and i mean sins). in fact, this would be a mark of french greatness: a searing acknowledgement of past crimes. but as we know from many other societies (japan and china come to mind), it takes generations for history books to be rewritten to reflect accuracy of fact. france is obviously still in it's middle-to-late denial stage (in the Kubler-Ross model).

France could learn a lot from Germany in this respect.

[qwerty]

Sarkozy should stop interfering with history, he has neither the stature nor the culture. He should also just avoid the topic of philosophy altogether, for the same reasons. His declaration on "politique de civilisation" was a mere fizzle, meant nothing, at least in his mind - just a gimmick cooked up by one of his advisors that caught his fantasy.

Basically, Sarkozy is just an *ss-h*l* (I've replaced the vowels with stars so as not to be moderated, I'm sure everyone can do the crossword).

But we do want to keep him for 4 years, as long as he carries out in full those reforms he was talking about. And I mean in full. Then, bye-bye.

[john o'doe]

Back on track with the fascinating Sarko. Apparently History was his favourite subject at school. The more I hear about him, the weirder it gets.
CB - I'm sure your readers would appreciate your analysis of why the French press which so enthusiastically cheered him into power, has turned so decisively against him.

[Mike]

When I first arrived to work in France some 25 years ago, the foreigners in the office asked why May 8th was a holiday. It was explained to us that it celebrated the anniversary of the French victory over the Nazis in Europe which had of course been achieved with a little help from 'les anglo-saxons'

[rocket]

"Real France was not at Vichy....

I ask

Today Real France is not throwing our 25,000 illegal immigrants a year regardless of their family ties in France. Then, who is breaking these families apart and throwing out these immigrants if not the real France?

Yeh, you let these people integrate and then years later one day on a back street you grab them and throw them out.

Christine

"Today's lack of reaction is strikening. I wonder if it is out of exhaustion from having to be angry all the time at Sarkozy's numerous rewritings of history, or if no one bothers anymore with whatever he is saying."

It's vacation weekend

Ros

"In a way Sarko was right when he said "France never committed a crime against humanity" during the occupation," it was not FRANCE who did this but PETAIN."

And who threw the Algerians in to the Seine in 1961

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/algerians.htm

"Papon worked in collaboration with SS Commando leader Otto Skorzeny, and was responsible for killing at least 200 Algerian civilians in Paris, when he ordered his police to club them to death and throw their bodies into the Seine River. This was reported as an act of reprisal for the killing of 30 policemen by the FLN, whose leadership had also been tampered with by Skorzeny during his 1953 visit to Cairo. According to Seán MacMathúna, Papon told his police that they should not hesitate to commit any atrocious act, because "they would be protected against any excessive violence."

Your ignorance of the occupation is disturbing.

So can we say Germany never committed crimes against Humanity it was Hitler.

Please read

Verdict on Vichy by Robert Paxton as well as the hundreds of other books on this period.

Monika

"I think the debate about France being innocent despite Vichy or France being guilty because of Vichy will never end...

Of course as long as there exists a culture drowning in denial.

Azloon

"the eternal france?" i mean, gimme a break.

Az, this is the usual rhetoric which translates into

"It's not my fault"

also

"i also noticed not a word in sarko's VE remarks about the nations that bore the brunt of defeating the nazis."

That's nothing! You should have heard deGaulle's comments at l'hotel de ville

http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/article.php3?id_article=514

"Paris ! Outraged Paris ! Broken Paris ! Martyred Paris, but liberated Paris ! Liberated by the people of Paris with help from the armies of France, with the help and support of the whole of France, of France which is fighting, of the only France, the real France, eternal France."

Every French President leader etc has the responsibility to stroke the fur. That's the only thing that keeps the population from falling off the precipice and into reality.

see the French relation to tranquilizers

http://tinyurl.com/6pxn2g
(article is a bit old but lots of other more recent material to be found)

In any case, since all of this occupation stuff was just an inside job by a bunch of thugs, then as an American I am relieved and will return the compliment to any French individual that opens their big "bouche" about Bush.

What I find extremely hypocritical is that at the beginning of his mandate Sarkozy didn't hesitate to criticize the French themselves. I would like to find a page that quotes all of the times that he said things such as " France is the only country to blah blah blah or Only in France is there Blah blah blah or why do the French think we can Blah blah blah when everyone else blah blah blah. These declarations were the basis for his reforms, the ills of France. (well described I might add) Now he has fallen into the fold like they all do. Using nationalism to save themselves and he will as effective as the others. Without a doubt.

IMHO his biggest gaffe was "les caisses sont vides" That was a slap in the face of the entire French nation that had pinned their hopes on him. (erroneously, I might add if one knows a bit about economics)

"Il leur a donné le sein" and then he pulled it away.

Ah yes! he was going to do it all. Liberate the Bulgarian nurses, Allez chercher Ingrid Betancourt, chercher un point de croissance...

Here is an interesting article which deals with the subject

http://tinyurl.com/58p54p

He had his chance and he blew it.

I got a chuckle watching the Russians parading nuclear missiles through Moscow the other day. It compared so well with Chirac's nuclear testing when he came to power. There are so many things in common in these types of regimes. Maybe we'll see some Nukes on July 14th on the Champs.

Didn't Sarkozy call to congratulate Putin or the other one on his victory

Each French President wants to leave his imprint on the eternal France. Having morally supported Sarkozy as to his initial intentions, I fear that the only imprint he may leave on France is the one that comes off your shoes once you have stepped in it.

He paraded his personal life in front of the French practically crying out

"Look at me Look at me"

He went jogging with NYFD t-shirts for what reason. A cheap carrefour T would have done.

If I saw my President jogging in a pompier de Paris T shirt I would be furious.

What Sarkozy said the other day on May 8th is neither surprising nor disturbing to me. Certainly not after 30 years here. When you don't expect much from people you tend not to be surprised when they don't deliver.

So you live outside the envelope

[richard jones]

To Ros,

Young lady I suspect the 8 mai derogation of Chiraq by Sarko is but the beginning of a carefully stage-managed distancing from his pre-praetor.
Chiraq, and damned right too, is under investigation for various sins 'la main dans les caisses' and old friends in France tell me there is enough evidence for trial.
Watch what Sarkosy does next as he can stop the procés or accelerate it as he wishes.

More follows on the core blog issue.

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

I feel that I have been wasting my time commenting on the "Paris under the Nazis" thread. Now we have Sarkozy saying it was no fault of France, the murders, the crimes against humanity, the robbery, the brutality of the Milice, Jews fed into Hitler's killing machine etc. Only last week a TV progamme in France whitewashed Mitterrand, following on the pathetic film on the same theme. It is recommended by MONICA here, and leads me to believe that she is a sensible person whose schooling was censored about the war, like my German friends in Spain. I now believe that the same history was censored in France, as it appears that very few Commentators here know anything about Vichy France. I assume the dozens of books about Vichy have not been translated from English.
What is Sarkozy's game? What is the game of the Paris officials with their whitewash exhibition of photos? How many books are there in French and German about Vichy France? Were the children taught that the presence of the GESTAPO contravened the Armistice, that it was installed secretly but they they had sections in occupied cities staffed almost by FRENCH plainclothes staff?
Of Alfred Rosenburg's teams of robbers working for Hitler and Goering who stole 11,000 paintings and objet d'art from museums and the homes of the Rothschilds, David-Weills and Wildensteins?
Of the French Gestapo group in rue Lauriston (16eme) all professional criminals who enriched themselves and unscrupulous lawyers and art dealers?
Of Papon, Touvier, Bousquet protected by Mitterrand for 50 years on charges of crimes against humanity?
Of the 40,000 mental patients killed by Vichy by starvation?
Of the Roman Catholic church and the Swiss Red Cross issuing visas to Klaus Barbie, Eichmann, Joseph Mengele and hundreds of escaping Nazis now in Argentina?
General de Gaulle hushes it all up; Mitterrand covers it all up; Chircac apologises; the Catholic Church apologises; Film and TV try to whitewash the collabo. Mitterrand; Sarkozy says France did nothing, it was all Petain, who was sentenced to death for collaborating.
What is going on in France?

[Dominique]

What are all those who support the idea that Vichy was "real France" up to?

Are you all claiming the the Vichy regime was legitimate? that the war and german invasion have nothing to do with it?

The truth was very well described on Arte last night : the vichy issue is the shame. The shame of the french toward their own governement of that time who did not even try to fight against the germans. The just flew. Raynaud was probably the symbol of it.

But do coward governements make legitimate any forein invasion? Is the Vichy regime legitimate? no. it was legal, but illegitimate because done under german pressure

[Arkarter]

It seems to me that every nation has some mark of Cain. The west bought slaves. But Africans sold them. Guilt is ubiquitous. There are no virgins in the room. The question is, will a modern nation continue to allow the crimes of the past to used as a tactic, to inflict and maintain perpetual manipulative shame. Some nations are expected to hang penitent on the cross while their political foes, like Longinus, stand ready to pierce them again, year after year, decade after decade, election after election. The war is long since over. The history is well-known. I believe Mr. Sarkozy realizes that, and knows it is time to climb down from the cross.

[Don]

Could someone please explain to me why the date is May 8 for this celebration of the French forces - 177 strong - landing on the beaches of Normandy with the British troops - 28,000 strong - when that happened on June6 - D-Day? And, wouldn't such a celebration highlight the disparity of troop strength that would be an embarassement to the French?

[richard jones]

To Don.

I would imagine that the nub of the Sword beach symbolism is that this France's first step on their own soil in the great expedition into Germany and the eventual downfall of Nazism on May 8.

[richard jones]

I wonder why Sarko went to the Canadian cemetery at Beny-Riviers. If my memory serves me right that is near the old Juno beach, often called the Canadian beach. There was serious loss there on June 6-7th as the British failed to link Sword to Juno some say because of Gen. Dempsey's confusion and others because of a short but very sharp German counter on Sword/Juno junction.
I hope this is not a sign that Sarko wishes to muddle in the Quebec (any French in this post will be subtitled) and Canada. The concern is not based on my political partisanship - whatever that might be - in the region but concerns that Sarko has opened (possibly) yet another drawer as he heads into the presidency of the EU closet in July and as the need for internal socio-economic reform in France grows stronger and stronger.

[Francois D]

Charles, you are right to use the verb "revise " in your title. This man (NS) is borderline with history. Every week I hope that he will be better the next one, in particular thanks to Carla's councils and "badaboum", he recidives. I saw two times his speech on the beach in Normandy. Initially, that started from a finer feeling: to honour the Commando Kieffer, these 177 French who unloaded in first, with English uniforms, and for that they have had problems with C De Gaulle. Think that some died without having had the "Legion d'Honneur".
The worst, it is the speech, not in its form because NS'speeches are always well written by her "feather" Guaino. This man knows how to transform words in rhetoric (often using redundancy in beginning phrases). What one heard makes us return 20 years back. Not badly for a man who claims to advance to us of as much...
Chirac had been courageous to reconnize France'responsablity, in particular her police in the deportation of the Jews (the Vel d'Hiv speech). Is it to erase this courageous act, that we heard this neo-revisionnist one? It is not only likely to leave the country in intellectual ruin but even more in a state of schizophrenia. What will think the younger generations: one says them blue one day and green the following one. This speech leaves me a taste as much bitter as that of Dakar, in June 2007, about Africa and Africans.
It should be explained to children why there are good persons and other bad in all countries. France had dark moments in its history: religious wars (in particular in Cevennes...), the slavery and draft of the Blacks, Napoleon, Pétain, Algeria'war... One waits from a President that he helps the country to accept this past and reconciles us with. Chirac was very good in this domain.
May be that exasperates the current one...

Perhaps it would also be necessary to reconsider these incredible oral attacks against the press occurred this week.

[Daniel Strohl]

Mr. Kinsley,

"What is going on in France?"

Mr. Kinsley, you are no more the storyteller you want to be - you are turning into a tiresome lesson giver, basing the contents of your lessons on well known books everybody is able to buy and read, even in a country as retarded as you postulate France to be :))

I could may be understand this if you were 15 years older and if you had been a combattant during the war (en français : vous raconteriez alors des histoires d'ancien combattant). But this is not the case, since both of us were about 10 years old at the end of the war. Therefore, the direct experience of both of us is rather limited, even if I had the "advantage" to be very close to the (bloody) combats which occured in the close vicinity of our village in January 1945.

Charles' readers are educated and intelligent persons; they know the facts you mention. No need to repeat them endlessly, in various threads. The bloggers have their own opinions, based on their own knowledge and their own experience of life - I am not sure that you will have them change their minds, should the necessity arise to have them changed...

Richard,

"I hope this is not a sign that Sarko wishes to muddle in the Quebec"

I hope too - I am even convinced that it is not a sign. Life is sufficiently difficult for Sarkozy - il a d'autres chats à fouetter :)). Pas la peine d'ouvrir une boite de Pandore ...

[Daniel Strohl]

Rocket,

"see the French relation to tranquilizers"

May be you too should use a batch of tranquilizers :)). They are still paid back by the Sécurité Sociale. But beware, this will not last for ever (les caisses sont vides...).

PS : I was worried not to hear anything from you since a given time. Fortunately, you are now back full steam ahead ... Rocket a bouffé du cheval - LOL!

[azloon]

[Some nations are expected to hang penitent on the cross while their political foes, like Longinus, stand ready to pierce them again, year after year, decade after decade, election after election. The war is long since over. The history is well-known. I believe Mr. Sarkozy realizes that, and knows it is time to climb down from the cross.] ARKARTER

'Some nations.' like france for instance, and unlike Germany, just don't 'get it.' you don't get off the hook with a half-ass military effort and collaboration with the enemy just because a portion of your population would have liked to make a better showing.

all germans were not in favor of nazi tactics but i don't know of instances in which germany had attempted to avoid responsibility for the nazis.

it was sarko himself that recently suggested that france take appropriate responsibility for sending french jews to die in concentration camps. did this sentiment suddenly desert NS, along with dropping the proposal that french school children learn the name of one of those jewish children sacrificed by their fellow french? i guess so.

i believe the discussion re nazism on this blog has resolved (PK excepted) that germany has examined and reformed itself to an extent that permits it to move on without debilitating shame.

france hasn't done that yet. it remains dazed and confused.

[Daniel Strohl]

Richard,

"I hope this is not a sign that Sarko wishes to muddle in the Quebec"

I just read an article in Le Figaro on line. The reason of the presence of Sarkozy in the Canadian military cemetery is most probably due to the 5 days visit in France of the Governor General of Canada, Mrs. Michaëlle Jean (see link below).

The French press (with the notable exception of Le Figaro) is as usual full busy demolishing Sarkozy; therefore, they have no time and space left to comment the visit of a head of state of a foreign allied country (if I were Maggie, I would not be pleased with this goujaterie and would therefore cancel my subscriptions, if any, to the French press...).

The article is rather long, but very interesting (in French, of course).

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualites/2008/05/10/01001-20080510ARTFIG00034-michaelle-jean-la-petite-reine-du-canada.php

[Terry]

CB said:

"Sarkozy wants to restore national pride..."

I never knew it was gone.

"Sarkozy has been doing other odd things this week."

My guess is that Sarkozy is flailing. Sarkozy is not lancing windwills. There is a method to his madness. He does not have the fortitude to push through his agenda. So, he creates non issues and attacks straw men as a distraction to the fact that his fuel tank is empty. Politicians do this all the time. Are we talking about unemployment, high taxation, etc. or are we refighting a war finished sixty years ago and discussing former and dead politicians?

Speaking of refighting the war, some other shameful french episodes:

1. The refusal of the French fleet at Oran to join or at least turn over it's ships to the British. These ships would have fallen into the Nazi's hands had Churchill not been forced to destroy the French.

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/churchillsinkingfrenchfleet.php

2. The French navy and army opposed the allied landings in NOrth Africa resulting in the deaths of allied soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign

And to be fair, the US had a shameful episode as well courtesy of our Democratic Party's favorite socialist president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

[christopher muir]

There appears to be an ever- increasing reference nowadays to Joseph Goebbels' use of the media to manipulate public discourse. Of course, no contemporary democratically elected head of state would endorse the master manipulator's advice to his fellow gang members. He told them to "think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."

[Romain]

These boots are way too large for Sarkozy.

[richard jones]

Thanks M. Strohl that clears up the Canada thing. I suppose if a PM is on a visit you gotta......
There's a final historic footnote, of course, which is that GdGaulle wanted Kiefer's men to go ashore with the Canadians, rather than les anglo-saxons, as he believed the majority of the Canadian force attacking Juno would be francophone. There were rumours in command circles at the time that this 'lack of understanding'from the high command was one reason why Kiefer's band was so small.

[Paris]

La gente no tiene ni idea, zarcosy es to buena ente, am i me cae de lujo, ojala este muchos mas años en el poder en Francia.

[Daniel Strohl]

"There's a final historic footnote"

There was also a Canadian preamble to the main battle in France in WW II : the attack on the French harbour of Dieppe by mostly Canadian troops in August 1942, i.e two years prior to Operation Overlord. This may have been another reason of Sarkozy's visit of the Canadian military cemetery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid

[sebastien]

Terry:
The sinking of the French fleet at Mers el Kebir was perhaps rather more shameful for the British than for the French.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir
Don:
May 8 celebrates VE Day, in 1945, and is a national holiday with attendant presidential speechifying. There is no national holiday for D-Day (June 6 1944).

[Ros]

RICHARD JONES: Unfortunately I'm not a "young lady" but right at the other end, but that's beside the point! You can surely see that the so-called "Chirac investigation" will go no further 'tho I quite agree that it should. I was simply stating that whether one likes him or not (which I do NOT), one must admit that he did befriend Sarko for many years.
DON: May 8th does not celebrate the landings in Normandy but the end of the war in Europe - VE DAy (listen to http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/8/newsid_3580000/3580163.stm .

[Lily]

I

“La vraie France”… If real France wasn’t at Vichy, wasn’t real Germany in Auschwitz either?

Sarkozy delivers a distorted view of history.

France appears free from personal guilt. France is a charming and lovely country, blessed with mountains and the sea and people who have taste and beauty, nouvelle cuisine and haute couture, culture and the arts.

Those who have never betrayed what is real about France were the Resistance fighters. They represent what France really is about.

This is the message Sarko is sending. Vichy was fake, an illusion, …

Dominique says, «But do coward governements make legitimate any forein invasion? Is the Vichy regime legitimate? no. it was legal, but illegitimate because done under german pressure. “

France had been her true self, until this German Nazi Monster destroyed what had been real. Nazi German invasion is to be held responsible.

Sarko wants to deliver his people from anything that might weigh on them, that might depress them. He focuses on France’s heroes.

II

Germans would not be able to go into such state of denial. They kept detailed records of their deeds and have assumed full responsibility for their acts.

On the other hand, what Sarkozy says about France, is also true for/of Germany. The real Germany hasn’t been Nazi Germany.

The real Germany, that’s Goethe and Schiller, Bach and Beethoven. Germans are inventive, bright and disciplined. They are a little noisy. They have great cars…

I felt unconditionally positive about Germany, my home, when I was a 5-year-old child. My grandfather and his brother could bore me to death when they exchanged anecdotes about WWII. When I later learned what WWII had been about, I was shocked – but still, this didn’t have anything to do with my young life. All this had happened before I had been born.

I have grown older and matured and learned that things weren’t as simple as I wanted them to be. I learned that other people didn’t share my view. I felt compelled to have a closer look at those long-gone events.

III

National Socialism was born in Germany. Germans consisted of good people and bad people like every nation across the globe. There are others who can explain better how things evolved politically, in what ways racism lingered within German society, etc.

Fact is there were people who wanted Hitler’s regime. Fact is also, that Germans in their time – in large parts – didn’t read and understand the signs of their times. They hadn’t been there before. They didn’t know how many lives Hitler’s regime and his war machine were going to cost. Some were naïve, others were opportunists who would make it in just about any system, yet others were afraid or figured that Hitler might bring a better future, yet others, equipped with good critical thinking were afraid, but felt powerless, didn’t see an alternative. Whatever the original motives of all these Germans were, who got involved with Hitler’s regime, by force or out of free will, or by looking away – ALL ARE RESPONSIBLE of what happened.

National Socialism brainwashed people. This isn’t an excuse. This could only happen because people let it happen. I believe that very few people in their own time had doubts or an awareness of the impact this would have when Hitler came into power.

We KNOW - now. This is easy because these events are history now.

There were some, however, who didn’t follow the herd and who didn’t look away. There was a resistance within Germany!! –

In other words, once Hitler’s propaganda machine had taken root, Germans, i.e. the masses adapted to the demands of their times and became guilty. There had been anti-Semitic sentiments before but did Germans (the masses) want to ‘exterminate’ the Jewish people? Did they want war? Hitler wanted it, and he brainwashed Germans into wanting this, too and into becoming willing executors of his evil-mad ideas. These brainwashed people still were responsible.

Many Germans were responsible but did they represent the real Germany?

They didn’t. When evil doesn’t have a hold on us, we are a nice people, with our strengths and weaknesses, like all other people on Earth. In the past, Germans opened the way to evil and let it in, enter their hearts and minds. Our forefathers are responsible for their deeds, just as much as French collaborators at Vichy didn’t withstand Nazi German pressure. This same thing had happened in Germany before. Many people didn’t withstand Nazi ideas, accepted them or identified with them.

This evil madness originated in Germany. Maybe France wouldn’t have been a possible breeding ground for the craziness that took hold of Germany. But then, did the French follow their occupiers’ demands or didn’t they?

With regards to the resistance, I’d say that the French had a little ‘head-start’ over the Germans. By the time, Nazi ideology had “infiltrated” France through Nazi German occupiers, more people were aware of just how bad it all was; the effects of Nazi Germany had already been felt for a while.

What if Hitler had WON the war? All the bad guys would be heroes, and we’d all speak German. In their own time, people in the resistance were the crazy ones, who took the risks and lost their lives.

I believe that most of the ordinary good guys in their time preferred to get involved as little as possible and look away. Then there were those who would make it in any system, and those who were the real baddies, in Hollywood parlance.

The resistance fighters were the crazy ones. And they are the ones who are the heroes because they didn’t betray their fellow people, they took risks, and they have helped to give their nations back what is good and real about them when the good (God) and not evil is in charge.

The good guys won.

Could they have won without the help of the Americans, though?

IV

We are caught in this retrospective of our past. Resistance fighters couldn’t point to anything that had happened before and say: Look, we’ve been there! They lived in their days, IN FULL AWARENESS OF CURRENT EVENTS; they had moral backbone and the capacity to judge a situation, draw consequences and take the necessary risks.

What should we learn about this?
Is it really productive to insist on banning art that served propaganda purposes more than 60 years ago?
What is so remarkable about the resistance?

These people were highly alert and attentive. They didn’t follow the masses and they had critical thinking capacities and didn’t let others do the thinking for them.

There are good people and bad people in every nation. There are no innocent people. We all carry the stains of our nations on our vests, even if we haven’t committed the crimes that others associate with us.

It is true that certain traits of character or talents get associated with certain nationalities. This is true in good days and in bad days. Even if numbers and methods differ, can genocide or war ever be called more or less horrible than another? It is what it is. Thus it is about racism, hatred, murder, …

V

J G Flinn said on the Paris Nazi Photo exhibition thread, "The EU appears to be a freely elected democratic institution yet has distinct authoritarian tendencies, and its attitude to referendums can be described as elitist tyranny.
I wonder what will happen when someone wants to leave it."

This comment demonstrates serious critical thought.

While German National Socialism was about nationalism, imperialism and racism, I wonder whether we don’t overlook some ISM that we should REALLY be concerned about.

We don’t have to rely on the past to find things to think and worry about. There is plenty in the here and now.

What is wrong with the French media? Isn’t there any serious body that watches over this element that is crucial to the well-being of any democracy?

VI

Sarkozy wants to make the French believe that the real and eternal France is innocent.
When I first read about it in French media, I didn’t see Sarkozy’s denial as such so much but rather his focus on France’s “REAL” nature, as described above.

His reasoning reminded me of how I had looked at it as a child.

Besides the points that historians cite this interpretation, distortion or emphasis also implies that only German Nazis must have been (all) guilty while the French were all innocent.

This doesn’t really help our friendship.

VII

N.B. When signs in France that remind of Nazi German crimes are changed so that they refer to Nazis, not Germans, this takes into account that there were collaborators, and that not all Germans were Nazis.

Besides, times should have changed since my own childhood one generation ago. Neither German nor French children were born to Nazi parents. Most of their grandparents were children during that war… - At some moment, every nation can admit to their crimes towards humanity and live on without feeling crushed with shame because all personal link to or responsibility for the events will have become history.

That moment isn’t quite there, yet.

[richard jones]

Ros,

I think Sarko will grease the right wheels to ensure that Chiraq does end up in court and follow due process that was why I mentioned it. Like you I think he should stand trial.
Further, I suspect that Sarko will ensure that the sentence is virtually nothing.

On the Dieppe issue, many people at the time thought it went so badly for the Canadians because local intelligence was either so inept or so tesselated by the 'moles' in GdGaulles' HQ .....

[Paul]

4 points
1) too many long confused contributions in this blog
2) note several excellent films on FR3 and Arte giving the real history of France (note that Chaban Delmas and Couve de Murville are said to have 'cooperated' with Vichy) + the excellent Zucca exhibition which gives the true picture of official centralised France submissive to Hitler, exactly as the latter wanted : the appearance of normality, with which many French people did not revolt against - cf the violence in Mai 1968 CRS=SS!!).
3) Together with the excellent documentary of the Setif massacre (1945 too!!) this challenges the mythical history of wartime and postwar France.
4) Taken together with a recent film of De Gaulle, we can see how the latter was actually a liar a cheater and a fraud (as Mitterrand observed). This must throw into question the whole nature of Gaullisme as a sort of Freemasonery.
5) Notwithstanding Sarkozy, I believe French academics and intellectuals are beginning the necessary work of revisionism.
6) A point of history : Giscard tried to abolish the 8th May as superfluous, but this proved unpopular.
7) I would like to think that recent British history has also been cleaned of its myths (charity and the hospital).

[richard jones]

Ros,

I think Sarko will grease the right wheels to ensure that Chiraq does end up in court and follow due process that was why I mentioned it. Like you I think he should stand trial.
Further, I suspect that Sarko will ensure that the sentence is virtually nothing.

On the Dieppe issue, many people at the time thought it went so badly for the Canadians because local intelligence was either so inept or so tesselated by the 'moles' in GdGaulles' HQ .....

[Lily]

"1) too many long confused contributions in this blog"

Paul,

I plead guilty.

Thank you for your excellent 4/7-points-comment.

[Daniel Strohl]

Paul,

"Taken together with a recent film of De Gaulle, we can see how the latter was actually a liar a cheater and a fraud (as Mitterrand observed)"

Paul, do you really think that Mitterrand had the proper credentials to call somebody a liar, a cheater and a fraud? C'est l'hôpital qui se f... de la charité! :))

[monplanet]

Points beyond question:
France collapsed and surrendered to Nazi Germany after four years of appeasement folly.
Democratically elected MP gave birth to the undemocratic Vichy state that partially governed France during the German occupation.
The Vichy government more or less deliberatly collaborated or lined up with Nazi Germany on several issues that proved infamous.

Points questionable:
To which extent was the Vichy government a "free" or a "puppet" one?
To which extent were the political forces behind Vichy's révolution nationale representative of the French people?
To which extent the French people was happy and comfortable with Germany and Vichy?

Born soon after the war in an educated no-hero-no-bastard family I shall probably die short of evidences of any collective innocence or guilt of the French people for the crimes commited in France during those dark years.
On the opposite I am convinced that France deserved (or was the only one to blame for) what she got considering the madness of its previous governments and the decay of its society. Negligence always comes to a price!

More telling than any presidential speech are Irene Nemirowski's Suite française, Patrick Modiano's books or Patrick Buisson's 1940-1945 Années érotiques.

[rocket]

Dominique says, «But do coward governements make legitimate any forein invasion? Is the Vichy regime legitimate? no. it was legal, but illegitimate because done under german pressure. “

That sounds like a "responsable mais pas coupable" to me.

Lily

But then, did the French follow their occupiers’ demands or didn’t they?

No only did they follow the occupiers demands but they often went beyond them. It is well documented that many roundup of Jews were on the initiative of the French Government and executed by the French police. The initial racist laws against the Jews were a French invention

The other night I watched a documentary on Degaulle or some such and they spoke about the Commando Kieffer and how they gallantly stormed a strategic German bunker in Ouistreham and captured all of the soldiers. After all of the bravery talk the documentary did mention that the Keiffer Commando finally called in an American tank to blast the bunker leading to the capture of the German soldiers.

"By the time, Nazi ideology had “infiltrated” France through Nazi German occupiers, more people were aware of just how bad it all was; the effects of Nazi Germany had already been felt for a while."

It seems to me that the real resistants were the Communists who had flipped when Hitler invaded URSS. The French communist party (a Stalinist party) beforehand was rather complacent to the Nazis because of the non aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin.

"The resistance fighters were the crazy ones. And they are the ones who are the heroes because they didn’t betray their fellow people, they took risks, and they have helped to give their nations back what is good and real about them when the good (God) and not evil is in charge."

It seems as if everyone in France claimed to be a resistant at the end of the war.

"These people were highly alert and attentive. They didn’t follow the masses and they had critical thinking capacities and didn’t let others do the thinking for them."

As I mentioned before most of these people were Stalinist communists owing their allegiance to Moscow during and after the war. Need I remind you that Stalin was one of the biggest war criminals if not the biggest in terms of murdering his own people and others in the Eastern bloc. (see the Polish Generals) There was a very good report the other night on G. Marchais which detailed the French communist party. It seems as if Georges stayed in Germany a little to long for comfort during the war, not returning when his work batallion returned to France.

"Sarkozy wants to make the French believe that the real and eternal France is innocent.
When I first read about it in French media, I didn’t see Sarkozy’s denial as such so much but rather his focus on France’s “REAL” nature, as described above.

His reasoning reminded me of how I had looked at it as a child."

In case you don't know French leaders have always treated the French as children.

I'm reading Iberia by Michner and he explained how the rise of Franco was possible because of the childlike attitude of the Spanish that is totally uncontrollable with now respect for convention. This is also applicable in other countries such as France and Italy and many Latin countries of South America. The question is why these people must be led in such a way that only fascism becomes an option or an authoritarian leader with immense powers.

Paul

"1) too many long confused contributions in this blog"

It is often necessary to construct the historical context as not everyone contributing to this blog may be aware of it.

IMHO, I don't think that the French should spend the rest of their history prostrate in front of the Allied invasion and the often difficult recognition of the American effort as well as every other nation that participated. In that case us Americans should still be thanking the French for Yorktown.
The French suffered immensely, their leaders had betrayed them. They were slow, they didn't see it coming and they got beaten and quickly. (sounds like the same thing today concerning the economy and the needed reforms) Their government then collaborated. That is the reality of recorded history.

Everyone suffered during that war. French towns were leveled by allied bombing and French lives lost. Daniel was French, then he was German and now he is French again.
No LOL here because I'm sure this was not a cakewalk period for him

What does bother me is when one tries to rewrite history for expedient political gain.

I think the French people recognize what happened during the war. Albeit often slow they are lucid. They may not like to admit it but they have it deep inside of them. Chirac (The bloody traitor LOL)recognized it and said it and that should be the end of the constant questioning of this period and certainly it's use as a political ploy.

Lily

"What if Hitler had WON the war? "

Well I for one wouldn't be writing this today.

[Monika]

Lily wrote:
"On the other hand, what Sarkozy says about France, is also true for/of Germany. The real Germany hasn’t been Nazi Germany.

The real Germany, that’s Goethe and Schiller, Bach and Beethoven. Germans are inventive, bright and disciplined. They are a little noisy. They have great cars…"

Sorry, but here I have to contradict you firmly. So was the Germany that killed so many people a fake Germany?
You simply cannot blind out part of our history and say: oh no that has nothing to do with Germany as if it just had been a sort of accident. Oups, we happened by bad luck to kill millions of Jews... Sorry, for my sarcasm here.
The same goes for the speech of Sarko. He presumes that France is a sort of idea and anything that doesn't fit into it is no part of 'real France'.
I think this is utter nonsense. A nation is made up by real people who make their choices and not by fake people.
On what concerns the support for Hitler by the German people (and others, don't forget the Austrians): I think in the best case they turned a blind eye on what was going on. I know for sure that everybody knew what was happening to the Jews. I know this from my grand mother who told me about rumors.
Btw the guilt began much earlier. There should have been an uproar from the moment on when the racial laws were decreed. There should have been protests against the way Jews were excluded from society step by step. But no, apart from singular events, everybody kept quiet, either by fear or because they profited from the situation (just think about the aryanised shops and enterprises)...

[Terry]

Sebastian:

The attack you reference is basically what I was referring to. The French were given a choice. Sail over to the allied side or be destroyed so the fleet would not fall into nazi hands. The French made their choice, a very wrong one. With thousands of english dying trying to keep France free, the fleet's refusal to do so was rather shameful.

[John White]

I have never been under the impression that the German Occupation of France was under terms of "collaborate or die." It wasn't as if the majority of the French had the same attitude towards the Germans as did the majority of the Russians. Perhaps, wisely.

[qwerty]

Monika, there were French peasants and pancake-vendors who made their fortunes in the war because Jews were "dessaisi" of their homes and other assets! Their descendants are extremely well off to this day.

[Lily]

Monika,

I was ironical when I talked about the 'real Germany' which is why I also emphasised the responsibility of the German people for their acts.

Besides, it IS difficult to fathom for a very young person with no history of his/her own that he/she as member of society, citizen of a nation, is supposed to feel shame and responsibility for the crimes committed by people he/she never saw or met or talked to.

Otherwise, I have just been playing with words in a sense of what would it have been like if s.o. had delivered a Sarko-speech in Germany... to demonstrate its absurdity.

I believe, though, that guilt and responsibility will lose some of their weight, as generations, as centuries pass...

---------

Rocket,

Thank you for your knowledge/corrections.

"In case you don't know French leaders have always treated the French as children."

I have rather been referring to HIS OWN reasoning... 'When I was a child, I talked like a child...' - Sarkozy is the President of France.

[dot king]

"The real Germany, that’s Goethe and Schiller, Bach and Beethoven. Germans are inventive, bright and disciplined. They are a little noisy. They have great cars…"" (Lily)

MONIKA - I'm sure Lily wrote that with a touch of irony, not to deny literally the evils of Nazism - she was paraphrasing Sarkozy's statement of what was the "real" France. At least that's how I understand it.

[Valentin]

The difference between France and Germany regarding WW2 is quite simple.
Hitler was democratically elected, he and his government represented the German nation, he enjoyed near complete loyalty from the army and from the people close to the end. Germany was the aggressor, the German nation altogether is responsible, and no "accepting the responsibility" will ever wipe that out - this is mere medicine for German sense of honour and supremacy (which still exist btw, which is why reunification should have never been allowed).

France was defeated, occupied, a puppet government installed - not democratically elected, not representative of the nation. This government and its administration, were of course made up of French nationals and they sometimes went much farther than imposed by the occupant. That's the ugliness of collaborations. There was an anti-semitic, racist, authoritarian, nationalist streak in France and it spoke on that occasion. It did not represent the French people - it was still a puppet government installed by the German state. There is responsibility, but not as a nation (the case of Germany, represented by and loyal to its goverment to the end).

[Valentin]

ROS:
"Sarko's treatment of Chirac is quite disgraceful - I didn't care much for the latter but after all he was a lifelong friend of Sarko & it was HIS party who got him in."

I don't approve of the treatment, but I'm told the rant was about the lack of reforms - a factual truth.

Btw Sarko was never Chirac's friend, especially after supporting Balladur in 1995. Sarko took the party away from Chirac by force and gave the Right new foundations, based on the idea that there is no shame to be rightwing and its traditional values should be rehabilitated and openly supported.

Btw I note Rocket is serving us the usual socialist rhetoric about "poor immigrants allowed to come and integrate and now being deported to their home countries" blah blah.
Too boring to argue that they came here illegally, they did NOT integrate (because they don't want to) and their countries are not concentration camps, but the place their families live (sometimes quite well off).

Still, funny to hear this kind of speech from an american :)

[dot king]

"There was an anti-semitic, racist, authoritarian, nationalist streak in France and it spoke on that occasion" (Valentin)

There still is and there always will be - arguably in every nation - not just France.

[sebastien]

Terry:
This is what Admiral Somerville (who led the attack on the French fleet) said afterwards:
"(it was)the biggest political blunder of modern times and will rouse the whole world against us…we all feel thoroughly ashamed…"
If he felt ashamed, why exactly should the French feel ashamed too?

[Dominique]

Valentin described very well the difference between "legal but illegitimate" (Vichy regime as a puppet regime) and both "legal and legitimate" (Hitler regime in Germany).

The debate about "real France" versus "Vichy France" is about that. "Real" is to be understood as "legitimate", meaning in the continuity of one country's history and values. DeGaule in London was clearly in charge of that continuity while Petain was a shamefull surrender "rupture".

Every country is identifying values as a core, defining what the "real" country is supposed to be about. For example, the US did not herald as "the values of the real America" the fact that it's own creation was based on the indian genocide. Genocide is not a value! Neither is the vichy regime.

I prefere countries who define themselves according to values rather than ethnicity or religion. And this, even if history shows periods when they are not respected.

Lili,

What you have difficulties to accept is that France did choose "Liberté Egalité Fraternité" as basic values, meaning that it will always choose to recognize the "real" France in the France that respect those values. The Vichy regime was a shame, and will never access to this status in french history. You may consider this is arrogant, but this is only about trying to hold to our values and not making the Vichy regime legitimate.

I know that this is, as the result, putting the responsibility of the Vichy regime back on the shoulder of Germany, but sorry, that is an historial fact : the vichy regime was the result of the german invasion. Would you define Kaboul's regime in Afghanistan legitimate and representing it's people in the 80's when the USSR was ruling the country? I suppose not.

All of this is not about denying the crimes of collaboration, it is about trying to do better the next time and remember why we should stick to values : for not producing an other vichy regime. French history is full of crimes and horrors, no need to mention (by the way, slavery was already tought at school when i was a kid, did anyone told Sarko?). Learning from history is the main point : Degaule was the one the french should have followed, not petain. That was the french shame and mistake : let's do not renounce to our ideals!

[Dominique]

When Sarko says "Degaule was real France", he does not rewrite history (he can't, history is a science belonging to everyone), he just heralds proper values. And that is clearly the role of politicians, and of course presidents.

They do it all the time. Was making the 14th of July our national day "rewriting" history?

[Monika]

Lily,
"I was ironical when I talked about the 'real Germany' which is why I also emphasised the responsibility of the German people for their acts."

My fault. Sorry, I really didn't get it.

Valentin:
"Germany was the aggressor, the German nation altogether is responsible, and no "accepting the responsibility" will ever wipe that out - this is mere medicine for German sense of honour and supremacy (which still exist btw, which is why reunification should have never been allowed)."

Now that is utter bs. I was born well after the end of the war as is now the large majority of the German people. We have about 10% Germans whose parents and grandparents were born outside of Germany. So apart from some old men, no one had the opportunity to participate in these crimes. I cannot feel any personal responsibility about it. I image that my fellow compatriots feel the same.
The responsibility is by the state as the successor to the Third Reich.
But just to make it clear: I think all people but particular Germans through their history should be aware of what happened and we all are responible for it not happening again.
Your phrases seem to be from somebody who had to live through the war and where I could understand it. From somebody my age I don't. In this case I'd take them to be sort of revanchist.

Every state follows his interests including France, the USA, the UK and Germany. Either you accept it from all or you don't. You cannot deny other states to do so by calling on historic responibility as long as it is within acceptable limits (those set by UN and EU). Because then I have to ask: when should it end? Or should Germany not be allowed to follow its interest within acceptable limits until eternity? But then, what about historic responibility of other countries considering their crimes?

[Lily]

"which is why reunification should have never been allowed)."

Wow, Valentin!

You don't stand alone with your concerns about German reunification.

But who should have taken care then of our inner border and our Eastern Länder when Germans wanted to be one again? Any idea? Why would you want to continue to 'punish' our "Ossies" :) who had been neither better nor worse than the rest of us?

[dot king]

Every nation, every state, every family, every individual is no more nor less than the total of its/his/her stated and unstated values (ie those we think are taken as read) and of their contradictions.
Whatever the past tragedies, misdoings, outright wrongs, errors of judgement of action are, whether admitted or denied, make up that nation, state, family, individual, in the present.
Admissions, denials are of no use whatsoever on their own.
What is important is that "we" (encompassing everyone down to the individual) recognise "our" (ditto) rights and wrongs, remain aware of them, and HEED them in terms of future behaviour.

[rocket]

Valentin

"Btw I note Rocket is serving us the usual socialist rhetoric about "poor immigrants allowed to come and integrate and now being deported to their home countries" blah blah.
Too boring to argue that they came here illegally, they did NOT integrate (because they don't want to) and their countries are not concentration camps, but the place their families live (sometimes quite well off).

Still, funny to hear this kind of speech from an american :)"

That's because you're ignorant and you think in terms of pensée unique.

Since I am American I must have a certain way of thinking. Since I think in a more humanitarian way, it doesn't correspond to your definition of an American. Shows your ignorance, but that you prove every time you sit down at your keyboard.

Do you take 5 weeks of holiday and 12 days of RTT? Do you belong to the national health care? Huh, you must be a socialist!

"they did NOT integrate (because they don't want to)"

Oh really. What makes you say that. How do you know. With closed minded people like you who make it impossible for them to assimilate they can't assimilate.

[Daisy]

Sarko talks out of one side of his mouth and shoves his foot in the other side.

See Charles, I told you Sarko would be less controversial subject than a startlet wedding :)

[Lily]

“What you have difficulties to accept is that France did choose "Liberté Egalité Fraternité" as basic values, meaning that it will always choose to recognize the "real" France in the France that respect those values.”

Dominique,

I have no difficulty accepting France’s basic values.

When I first heard about Sarko’s speech, I perceived Sarko’s “real” the way you describe it, although I didn’t refer to ‘Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité’ which I should have.

“I” – since I am not like those flag waving German nationalists that seem to hang around on this blog, according to some commentator :) – don’t consider it ‘arrogant’ to focus on ones values and ideals and virtues.

On the other hand, I believe that it is one thing to “make the Vichy regime legitimate”, yet another thing to not admit to the French people’s own guilt in this context.
“… his [Sarko’s] doctrine that France as a nation has no guilt to bear” (CB)

“the vichy regime was the result of the german invasion.”
No doubt about this. But then, what are values worth when there were French citizens who didn’t adhere to them but followed the orders of their occupiers? All criticism of Sarko’s speech is about his apparent DENIAL (or ignorance) of French collaboration, as if it hadn’t existed because it wasn’t in accordance with French values and because these crimes were committed in the name of the occupier.

Looking at the things that happened in Germany, I can only repeat that German nationalists wanted to see Hitler in power but very many soon felt betrayed by him. I don’t deny German crimes but I also see that for many peace-loving Germans, Nazis were like the German occupiers to the French. –

I don’t belittle anything. This is a view that I have because I don’t believe in ANY nationalism. Vichy and Nazi Germany were interwoven. Yes, Vichy was the result of German invasion but as a consequence, virtuous French citizens no longer adhered to their values, (read Rocket…).

There is no point in emphasising this historical fact, but when you commemorate the end of WWII that France celebrates as a personal victory, it would be wise to not just celebrate nationalism but also admit ones own sins in this context. “I” don’t need it. But I believe that lack of sensitivity/generosity with detail for the sake of nationalist pride – is dangerous.

Besides, if the Vichy regime was the result of German invasion, which is true, it is also true that France alone – without significant help of all other allies, wouldn’t have delivered us from our Nazi beast. ;)

-----

Re: ‘slavery’ – Dominique, wasn’t there talk about reducing the curriculum in Primary education to the basics of Reading, Writing and Math – with hardly any time left for Science, History and the Arts? Then, I read about Sarko ‘re?’-introducing ‘slavery’ as a subject matter. Is it a 'Back to Basics Plus' Programm? – the ‘Plus’ being the Shoah and Slavery?!

[Valentin]

Monika,
The point I tried to make is that the blame for the war, for the devastation, for the Holocaust, did not belong to "the Nazi" (as Mr. Kinsley rightly observed), but to the WHOLE GERMAN NATION, because the 3rd Reich was legitimate, legal government and because the people and the army backed it nearly TO THE END of the war.
The German army was not the SS or the NSP, but young germans who loyally did what they were ordered, for the Führer and for the Fatherland. It is correct to say the Germans devastated, the Germans created Auschwitz, not just Hitler, Himmler or "the Nazi".

For comparison, we can say Russians were not responsible, as a nation, for the horrors of the communism (even if that statement will raise fierce protests in Eastern Europe, who always felt the effects of the russians' own dream of supremacy)

So while it is not your (or Lily's) personal responsibility, it is the German nation's as a whole, and it's your choice, by claiming yourself a German, to bear your share too.
Or else, exactly what Peter says will happen: the new generations will feel totally disconnected, and free to repeat history. The terrain is beginning to be laid when the youth start to say "I'm not concerned about that history".

[Valentin]

Monika:
"Your phrases seem to be from somebody who had to live through the war and where I could understand it. From somebody my age I don't. In this case I'd take them to be sort of revanchist."

I've seen and read and heard SO much on the war (like most of us here I think) that I will only take that criticism from someone directly involved.
But that's beside the point, all I speak about is historical fact.

As to state interest, Germany, just like Japan, is not just any other state. Their militarist, nationalist and hegemonic traditions and history should guard us from believing that treaties can't be broken anymore, arming up can't be done in the hiding and blitzkriegs.
As an example of modern German state interest, I could quote the involvement of unified Germany in starting and supporting the recent Balkan wars, with the well known results.

[azloon]

Lily

yours are wise words that cut through much of the fuzzy thinking seen here on the board.

[Valentin]

"what about historic responibility of other countries considering their crimes"

You mean to compare stuff like colonisation with the systematical, state organized, modern-means, large scale atrocities of the 3rd Reich and the USSR ? I can post pictures with those naked columns of prisoners...

Maggie was wrong in saying all nations did barbarisms, this is just another way to relativize the Horror.
Buying slaves on the african local markets and using them in America has strictly nothing to do with the Holocaust, whose very purpose was to exterminate (in precisely registered and organized manner) entire races within a few years - not for any rational reason, but for the supremacy of the Aryan race. Not even Attila and his Huns can be compared to that.

[Valentin]

No Rocket, what I'm saying is that yours is red-tainted (no exaggeration here) socialist rhetoric, that you know that fair well, and that you use it when it suits your purposes (of bashing France, to be exact).

[Maggie]

"Maggie was wrong in saying all nations did barbarisms, this is just another way to relativize the Horror." (Valentin)

This is NOT what I said, Valentin. What I said was, "If you look at all this stuff you will see that the Nazis are definitely not the only ones who have been barbaric."

And I said nothing about buying slaves on the African market. I was referring to a study that compared all the atrocities of the 20th century, such as in King Leopold's Congo, Stalin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, Japan during the war, Rwanda, Biafra, Bosnia, Armenia, Roumania, Liberia etc etc etc

You will have to learn to slow down, Valentin, read carefully, think about what you're going to say, and check back afterwards to make sure you got it right, or no one is going to take you seriously.

[Monika]

Valentin:
""what about historic responibility of other countries considering their crimes"

You mean to compare stuff like colonisation with the systematical, state organized, modern-means, large scale atrocities of the 3rd Reich and the USSR ? I can post pictures with those naked columns of prisoners..."

No, I didn't compare anything here. But if I read well here you say that any other crime can be forgotten. How suitable. I am as responsible of these crimes as you are. Remember, I didn't choose my place of birth. As anyone else in the past, in the present and in the future does.
On what concerns the Balkan wars. Yes, one may argue that it was Germany's fault by recognising these states that triggered the war. It was also argued that it was pure naivty and certainly a diplomatic blunder that is misjudgement.
I don't know what the interests of Germany would have been to start this war on purpose.

[Valentin]

Maggie,
I'm looking for your post but I can't find it. Strange. My eyes must have weakened. Age.

If I remember well, it's not the first time you mention that study, and I already voiced my doubt as to its author's competence.

I don't like to compare atrocities, but the fact is that nothing compares with what the 3rd Reich and the Communist dictatorships did: systematic, precisely organized and recorded extermination of entire peoples, with modern means, for no reason but ideology.
You can quote all massacres you want, none compares to the destruction of the WW2, of the communism, of the concentration camps in Poland or Siberia.

Implying there are lots of massacres in the world, some even more barbaric than those two, you actually relativize two genocides that do stand out.
That's probably not your intention, but if you come up with such comparisons, when these two genocides simply have no pair, I do believe you need to review your history lessons on WW2 and read those Gulag books I mentioned elsewhere.

[Valentin]

Monika,
I don't say you're personally responsible, but the german nation was, and of a tragedy that far outpassed any other. I didn't want to get there, but I can't keep silent when the guilt is no longer german, but nazi, and the crime becomes just one amongst many in mankind history.
It's a delicate subject, I actually liked all german people I've met so far, but I can't help seeing 3Rd Reich and communist crimes as outstandingly bad.

As to the Balkan wars, voices are saying Germany helped Croatia and Slovenia with more than just recognition.

[Fernandez]

Azloon -

Well said.

Rocket -

"IMHO, I don't think that the French should spend the rest of their history prostrate in front of the Allied invasion and the often difficult recognition of the American effort as well as every other nation that participated."

I don't believe that they should should either, however, too often with the French, any acknowledgement of allied help or even a meagre 'thanks' is said begrudgingly. (Starting with De Gaul himself and, nowadays followed with, "but it was the Russians who really won it...". All the while, they carefully ignore the fact that Stalin was carving up Europe with Hitler a priori). I think half that clapping during Sarkozy's speech before Congress was just the joy of hearing a Frenchmen say 'Thank you' for anything. I'm surprised that ole Klansman Bobby Byrd didn't clutch his chest and keel over.

Dominique -

"For example, the US did not herald as "the values of the real America" the fact that it's own creation was based on the indian genocide. Genocide is not a value! Neither is the vichy regime."

As someone who is one-quarter Shoshone and happily alive, I am so sick of this America's Indian genocide canard. There were an est. 50,000,000 Indians in the Americas (north and south) when Columbus arrived. There were an est. 2,000,000 when the United States was founded. The vast majority died of European diseases for which they had no immunity. (BTW, it was the French who deliberately handed out blankets contaminated with small pox and introduced 'scalping'.) In North America, most of the rest of 'us' married and assimilated into the wider culture. Far more French Jews were exterminated during the 6 years of WW2 than Indians killed by U.S. Cavalry during the 19th century. I like Westerns too, but they are not history.
_________________

France under occupation was essentially in a state of civil war. The French were fighting each other as much or even more so than the Germans. Both sides are the real France. The French need to figure out what was going on that they turned on each other.

Since America had its own Civil War (a subject we are endlessly fascinated with), I have sympathy for all the French in a difficult situation. Our 'bad' side, the South, lost but there is still a lot of romanticism surrounding hundreds of thousands soldiers who would lay down their lives for their States (even though 99% of them didn't own slaves nor could ever afford to) rather than submit to the Federal Government. While in the North many fought to preserve the Union (and couldn't care less about slavery) and others felt it their moral obligation to free the slaves no matter what.

I can sympathize with both sides in our Civil War. I don't understand what the Vichy people or Collaborators were fighting for other than mere survival. Why did they turn on other French?

[Lily]

So while it is not your (or Lily's) personal responsibility, it is the German nation's as a whole, and it's your choice, BY CLAIMING YOURSELF A GERMAN, to BEAR YOUR SHARE too.

Or else, exactly WHAT PETER SAYS WILL HAPPEN: the new generations will feel totally disconnected, and FREE TO REPEAT HISTORY. The TERRAIN is BEGINNING TO BE LAID when the youth start to say "I'm not concerned about that history". (Valentin; highlights by me)

Valentin,

“claiming” ourselves German – Did we “choose” to be Germans?

“bear our share” – What exactly do you mean? Do you mean that I should rehearse in your books about cut-out eyes, cut-off limbs, ETC.? – Must we do this and relive it all again? Are we genetically prone to committing these crimes again that were unparalleled in their magnitude, scope and extremism? Do you believe it would help to crush every German’s “pride” because German supremacy is genuinely dangerous?

What Peter says will never happen. History continues or gets reinvented. It may rhyme but the same thing wouldn’t happen again. German history was ‘interrupted’ in 1945. A new chapter of German and European history could begin. If the youth is no longer overly concerned about these events, WHY would that allow them to repeat history? Why would it encourage them to repeat history? Do fascism and racism and imperialism linger in every German?

Do you think it ‘helps’ if an innocent youngster is made to listen to an old enemy against whom he has never fought and who will tell him about things that you can re-read on the ‘Paris was not so bad under the Nazis exhibition’ thread? Do you think it ‘helps’? Don’t you think this youngster might feel hurt, get a little upset, if not angry and feel invited to retaliate, the verbal aggression? -

As time and threads go by, I begin to discover that reading more does not necessarily help.

There is very little Monika and I could do to “bear our share”, other than to listen patiently and endure what may not be called racism because German Nazi crimes entitle you to ask us to humble ourselves.

Technically speaking, I believe that I satisfy your demands but I doubt most young Germans do, at least not in accordance with how you wished they did. And I wouldn’t reproach it to them.

“… to RELATIVIZE the Horror” (Valentin, addressing Maggie)

This is so nasty of you! Why do you want to put more blame on one torturer or murderer than on another? Do you want me to admit to more terrible horror in the name of my nation? How far do you want to take this? You cannot ‘measure’ hatred and crime. They are born out of evil. In the face of evil, horror is relative, yes! The Germans followed a few national stereotypes in their evilness that produced crimes that were horribl-issimo. - WHY must you EMPHASISE this? Can’t you just let go?

What worries ME is this: You may read everything and anything that tells you about the Holocaust and the Gulag, but do you feel good about the things you read, or aren’t you too much taken in by what you read, feel the pain of those who suffered and a desire for revenge and retaliation? How could your desire to see us bear our share be satisfied? Can it possibly be?

PS: I don’t feel like making any ‘concessions’ after certain anti-German outbursts here. I must say, however, what I had once said before: When I first got a sense of German history and mourned the loss of German Jews, I thought that Germans should have gotten scattered to places all over the world, where they wouldn’t have known the language and lost their security and pride. – The contrary had happened. German society remained pretty much the same because ‘someone’ had to run the country and because my idea would have been unthinkable, still today. So, if they/we have grown into a strong reunified nation in the eyes of the world and in Germany’s own reflection, upsetting and frightening our neighbours by our mere existence, is there anything that we should or could actually do about it?

[rocket]

If I may quote from the mother of Boabdil the last Moorish king of Granada as he paused weeping on the road known as "El Ultimo suspiro del Moro" (The last sigh of the Moor) after surrendering the city of Granada in 1492 to the forces of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

" You do well my son to weep like a woman for the loss of what you could not defend as a man"

"Muhammad XII, conocido como Boabdil en la tradición cristiana, fue el último de los emires de la dinastía nazarí, pues el 2 de enero de 1492 entregó Granada a los Reyes Católicos. La madre de Boabdil, Fátima, que consideró esto como una muestra de flaqueza, le dijo a su hijo la famosa frase de: "Llora como mujer lo que no has sabido defender como hombre".

On my last visit to Granada I set out to find out if this quote was actually true or was only a fable. I could not get a credible source on it yet nonetheless a quote or fable which has very large implication in the debate at hand.

[Maggie]

"Maggie,
I'm looking for your post but I can't find it." (Valentin)

It's in "Paris was not so bad under the Nazis".

"If I remember well, it's not the first time you mention that study, and I already voiced my doubt as to its author's competence." (Valentin)

Well, Valentin, some people on this blog have doubts as to your competence. I think I trust that author's competence a little more than I trust yours now, unfortunately.

"You can quote all massacres you want, none compares to the destruction of the WW2, of the communism, of the concentration camps in Poland or Siberia." (V)

Those ones were on a much larger scale, yes, but that doesn't mean the people didn't suffer as much elsewhere. Systematically cutting off people's hands is barbaric. Slitting the throats of the populations of entire villages is barbaric. To remind you again, what I said was, "If you look at all this stuff you will see that the Nazis are definitely not the only ones who have been barbaric." That's what I said, neither more nor less.

I also said that on a per capita basis, King Leopold comes out worse than Stalin. He killed twenty percent of the population in the Congo, whereas Stalin killed twelve percent of the population of the Soviet Union.

You say that I "relativize" two genocides that do stand out. I guess I could say that you "trivialize" the three million who died in the Congo under Leopold's reign, and all the populations who suffered under the Japanese, and all the villagers who had their throats slit in Algeria not so long ago, and all the others. As Monika says, you say that these crimes can be forgotten. "How suitable."

[azloon]

I think this tortuous discussion might begin to explain to europeans the strong hold that the gun culture has on the U.S. (with its attendant difficulties and tragedies).

Americans don't want to run the risk of an out-of-control government, their own or another, imposing insanity on them. they would rather die than submit. so, they see gun ownership as one degree of protection against these possibilities.

If france had had that mindset of fighting to the death when germany invaded, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. it obviously didn't have it. in fact, in addition to submitting, it went one better and actively collaborated. (as an aside, i honestly don't see a whole lot of difference between lying down and 'playing dead,' and actively cooperating with the enemy.)

most americans are suspicious of government (a good thing) and worship Freedom -- it's and obsession and a religion with us.

New Hampshire, where sarko spent his holiday last year, has a state motto which could well be the u.s. motto:

LIVE FREE OR DIE

no need for seemingly endless blog chatter about french collaboration if the country had lived by these words. but since there is no going back, why not face up to it's monumental failure, and move on as a better country, rather than to continue in delusion. one would think that if the germans could do it, so could france. NS seems to sense a glimmer of this notion, but when it comes right down to it, so far at least, he opts for pandering.

[Lily]

"... claiming yourself a German..."

Maybe we can find redemption for the unforgettable sins that can be found in our national heritage by adopting a different nationality - Valentin?

[Maggie]

(BTW, it was the French who deliberately handed out blankets contaminated with small pox and introduced 'scalping'.) (Fernandez)

Fernadez, I don't think this is correct. I have never heard of the French doing such a thing

In North America, the French were up north in Canada where the land was not so suitable for farming. The fur trade was a big thing, and many French assimilated a lot into the native style of living, becoming coureurs-de-bois, paddling canoes across the country etc. In general, the French got along well with the natives.

Whereas in the thirteen colonies, they were far more interested in farming. Once they got past the Appalachians into the interior, they were competeing with the Indians for farmland, so there were a lot more wars going on.

I have always heard that it was the Americans who passed out contaminated blankets, but I will check it out. Where did you hear that it was the French?

[Lily]

Peter Kinsley and Valentin worry about Germany. They are not alone:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3920575.ece

;)

[Mary Fernandez]

Azloon -

It's odd you mentioned that. I just came from UVA, Charlottesville and visited Monticello, then up to Washington DC and through the National Archives to see the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (very awe inspiring, of course). I think one of the reasons we integrate immigrants so well is the almost civic religion surrounding these documents. The concept of 'American' is not related to birthplace, race or even history but to adherence to a creed. (Maybe we're a cult!)

I found this interesting factoid:

"Five signers of the Declaration of Independence were captured and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the war, nine died from wounds suffered in the war. Carter Braxton, a merchant, saw his ships swept from the sea by the British, sold his home to pay his debts and died in rags. Thomas McKeam died pennyless after serving in congress without pay. Vandals and soldiers of the British Army ravaged the homes of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Rutledge, Middleton. Thomas Nelson Jr. urged George Washington to fire upon his home after it was captured by General Cornwallis, the home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. Frances Lewis had his home and property destroyed, his wife was jailed and died there in a few months. John Hart was driven from his dying wife's bedside. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His property was destroyed. After living in the woods for a year he returned home to find his wife had died, his children vanished, he died a few weeks later. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates."

BTW, thank you French people for helping at Yorktown! :-)

[rocket]

I think that un "fil conducteur" is beginning to develop itself here through Valentin's comments as per German collective responsibility.

If you look at his comments, the chastising father complex is all too evident. Lack of compassion and forgiveness being a major component of his thinking. IMHO

Throw out the illegals! They suck the blood out of France and don't contribute! Rocket = French basher!. Germans should all feel responsible! Forever?

And he repeats them incessantly. ad nauseum.

Go Figure!

This get even mentality, I'm always right mentality is what put Germany on her knees after WWI triggering an inflation rate of up so high that at one time it took 1,000,000,000 (that's billion)DM to buy a dollar. This thanks to certain Allies "esprit revanchard"

We can see the screws being tightened again in France as authoritarianism has always been a major component of domestic policy especially under a regime with a very powerful President often lacking in the proper democratic safeguards.

On the one hand there is rhetorical compassion but in reality the "derive" toward repression is always present.

I thank my lucky stars that my country, with all of it's own imperfections, after WWII had a different approach and poured in money to the countries it defeated in order to build up their economies rather than running them into the ground with guilt.

[rocket]

Scalping

"Scalping was being practiced by the Native Americans prior to the arrival of any European explorers and settlers. In 1535, the first French explorer, Jacques Cartier, was shown "the scalps of five Indians stretched on hoops like parchment" by Indians near present-day Quebec City."

http://www.mohicanpress.com/mo08018.html

"The French and Indian War (1754-1760) is replete with incidents of scalping by French, English and Native American combatants. Newspapers, diaries, journals, and other period sources all document these occurrences"

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/1998/scalping.html

[Valentin]

Fernandez:
"I can sympathize with both sides in our Civil War. I don't understand what the Vichy people or Collaborators were fighting for other than mere survival."

You can't really compare the American civil war with the French collaboration. Half of France was under direct German administration, the other half was run by a puppet government. Incidentally maybe French fought French, but practically it was always resistance guerrilla fighting the occupant.

Maggie,
Since you speak of Congo, you just have to do what you used to do so well in the past: document yourself.
You'll find out that estimates go from 2 to 30 million victims, that no one has an idea of the population of the Congo before Leopold, that no one can point exactly the causes of the deaths - bad treatment and torture, forced labour on rubber gathering, hunger and diseases, mass murder.

Bref, everybody recognizes those atrocities, but it has NOTHING to do with what Hitler and Stalin (ie, Germany and Russia) did in Europe:
programmed, precisely organized mass executions of entire peoples, with modern means, with the purpose of exterminating those peoples, for no reason - not money, not war, not anything but ideology.
If you're not convinced, Maggie, there are lots of photos of the piles of naked people gassed at Auschwitz.

As to other huge posts, I'm repeating what I said before: I don't hate the germans, but the responsibility was not just Nazi's, but the whole German nation's, who voted Hitler in and supported him through, along with the Wermacht.

[Valentin]

Finally, Mr. Rocket, my French-bashing friend.

He said:
"Today Real France is not throwing our 25,000 illegal immigrants a year regardless of their family ties in France. Then, who is breaking these families apart and throwing out these immigrants if not the real France?
Yeh, you let these people integrate and then years later one day on a back street you grab them and throw them out."

Rocket, that's an obviously polemical post meant to show Real France has no respect for human rights.

These people were not "let in", they came illegally.
They did not "integrate", but dived into their own communities.
They're not "grabbed on a backstreet", but discovered during paper checks when they travel without tickets for instance. There's no SS chasing them through backyards.
Finally, they're not "thrown out" in the void, but sent back to their families in their home countries.

What shocked me, Rocket, was to hear from an American SUCH an apology of crime, SUCH disregard for the rule of law.
You and your socialist pals will have to explain to those honest people applying for visas and stay permits the concept of Rule of Law in Western democracies.

[dot king]

"I don't hate the germans, but the responsibility was not just Nazi's, but the whole German nation's, who voted Hitler in and supported him through, along with the Wermacht."
(Valentin)

OK soit. What about those who were too young to vote, were only schoolchildren, babies in perambulators, or even phoetuses at the time? Are they responsible too?
What about all the Germans not yet born, future generations, Lily and Monika's great-great-grandchildren, and their great-great-grandchildren? Will they still be responsible?
At what point do you authorise that they be absolved of this collective guilt?
Don't forget to leave a note when you die, or some fool might go and absolve them too early, before they've done enough atonement.

[dot king]

Rocket, how long have you been in France? 30 years isn't it?
Walentijn, how long have you been in France? How long have you been "French"?

So judgemental, so bloody smug and self-righteous and with tunnel-vision.

Valentin:
"Bref, everybody recognizes those atrocities, but it has NOTHING to do with what Hitler and Stalin (ie, Germany and Russia) did in Europe:
programmed, precisely organized mass executions of entire peoples, with modern means, with the purpose of exterminating those peoples, for no reason - not money, not war, not anything but ideology.
If you're not convinced, Maggie, there are lots of photos of the piles of naked people gassed at Auschwitz."