Too well dressed?
-
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. -
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(January 25, 2011 10:53 AM)
Funny, I was expecting this.
Don't be mistaken: it is not a "surrender", as you put it, it is just because you deserve despise and nothing but.
Let the readers of this thread be judges: they'll know well enough what kind of person you are at once. I understand that you need the Net to vent your xenophobic feelings while being unable to debate over anything you're not the only one but I'm not a shrink nor would I want to serve as an excuse for your distasteful behavior any longer. If you like to make a fool of yourself, it is your problem, not mine, and certainly you don't need me for this.
I put you on my ignore list from this moment on, so don't waste your time with an answer. -
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(January 25, 2011 05:53 PM)
Don't feel obliged to go on this discussion if you don't feel like it.
I admit I became a little too impassioned at first. But see what happens each time someone tries to clear up some misconceptions about occupied France. The subject attracts bigots like a magnet. By doing this, I know I expose myself to insults (and to make things worse, I don't even hide my citizenship my English being not perfect, I think people would notice rather rapidly that it's not my mother tongue). I usually react when I see crap about France (and perhaps Europe in general) and on this Web site there is plenty. But once in a while, you meet fairly honest people
and it proves that this is not a complete waste of time (plus it is a way to practise my English). And sometimes I learn things in the process, when I look for evidence to make a point.
At least I do believe that you can disagree over a serious subject without insulting your contradictor, but unfortunately the Net is a like a henhouse (you know, the place where chickens breed). Anonymity does wonders when it comes to sling mud at someone.
As for Ptain, I'll never find an excuse for what he did. To think that the guy was a womanizer, that he was a brothels' customer and he was the champion of "pro-natality pro-family return-women-to-the-home" propaganda makes me sick (sorry, but here I react as a woman). And you've probably heard of the recent findings that he was indeed as anti-Semitic as could be, that he often implemented German commands with more zeal than had been requested.
Perhaps Vichy regime preserved Paris. I just don't know what to think: without Ptain, France would never have been the world's most visited country? Uh!
I read critics (in French) of Buisson's work. While his book is full of quotes, he only quotes collaborationist newspapers. An honest historian would have refer to all types of sources, given the subject. And in implying that life in Paris was "one big romp", he avoids discussing the real responsibilities, or rather he adopts pretty much Ptain's stance ("Our defeat came from our slackness. The pleasure principle has destroyed the spirit of sacrifice has built up. I urge you, first of all, to undertake an intellectual and moral reform." Ptain's address to the French, 25 June 1940). The problem with Patrick Buisson is that he is certainly very knowledgeable on WWII, but he distorts real facts to support his reactionary theories. And he is probably tendentious in what he does not show.
I tend to avoid this kind of literature precisely because it is tendentious, meant to water down the reality of Occupation in one way or another (and in the end to promote far right ideas).
Web sites in English rarely mention that Patrick Buisson comes from the far right and that he is not a historian.
That's very unfortunate, because it is something worth knowing. -
buffalo-955-775685 — 15 years ago(January 23, 2011 06:00 AM)
I do wish the two of you would take your pas de deux offline, you both prattle on ad nauseum, one quoting the right-winger Buisson, the other the left-winger Paxton.
Ah, but we have a neutral third party, the left-leaning writer Paul Theroux, who has traveled the world and met all types of people.
Here's his take: in "The Happy Isles of Oceania" he wrote "the French are unprincipled, insincere and unreliable."
Could the two of you be as concise as Theroux? On behalf of the fans of Army of Shadows, I thank you.
P.S. The idiot French President Sarkozy (<in the view of the Americans, according to the Wikileaks cables) apparently believes that Alsace-Lorraine is part of Germany. Is it any wonder that France is in the merde? Mon Dieu!
-
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(January 23, 2011 03:25 PM)
Thank you for your clever comments. Is that short enough? And yes, that's ironical. Since the French are unreliable (how racist is that, by the way?), you're not obliged to believe me.
Just like you're not obliged to read anything. If you are bored by our discussion, just skip it.
P.S.: Sarkozy has no culture, it is a well-known fact. Glad you've just found out. And before saying anything clever on people who elect such uneducated guys, let me remind you that "W" was not exactly the most refined of gentlemen either.