Too well dressed?
-
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(August 10, 2010 05:24 PM)
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 -
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(August 25, 2010 04:23 PM)
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 Fre -
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(September 26, 2010 02:47 AM)
You'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. -
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(January 20, 2011 06:03 PM)
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 Ptain'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 Fron -
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(January 22, 2011 03:59 AM)
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'il 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 a -
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(January 22, 2011 02:30 PM)
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 Ostrkische SS, Tatarishe SS
Rumania 3,000 Waffen-Grenadierregiment der SS (rumnisches 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 -
buffalo-955-775685 — 15 years ago(January 24, 2011 05:47 PM)
"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 trs, trs FRENCH of you.
Dgot! -
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(January 25, 2011 02:21 AM)
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.
-
buffalo-955-775685 — 15 years ago(January 25, 2011 07:25 AM)
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 faire face" were alluded to in "Lon Morin, Prtre." 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'. -
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(January 25, 2011 07:36 AM)
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. -
buffalo-955-775685 — 15 years ago(January 25, 2011 07:50 AM)
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.
-
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(January 25, 2011 08:00 AM)
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.
