Too well dressed?
-
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. -
GrandeMarguerite — 15 years ago(January 23, 2011 06:48 PM)
I think you should have written two different messages. I didn't realize at first that there was some stuff for me in your post, nor would I think that "Buffalo something" will read what you have to say (or won't he/she)?
Gripe #7: "
"We can't rely on these French." That depends on what you mean by "rely". If you expect the French to react like Americans, you will be disappointed. They are not Americans; they are French.
[]" That's why I like the "112 Gripes", it is full of common sense
. And it is funny (or sad) to see that there's nothing new under the sun, really.
Anyway, Sartre certainly pales in front of Camus and some others. I actually came across his sentence the other day. Too bad for such an "engag" writer. But Sartre was pretty blind too when it came to the Soviet Union (until he found out the truth, which certainly took him some time). Again, that the European ruling elites got off pretty easy during the war is nothing new, but has little to do with what most people experienced every day.
And again, when Arletty (who was one of the top French actresses of the time) slept with a Nazi officer, I can't see how it would turn her as a collaborator, for she never sent anyone to the concentration camps. Now, that you may find her behavior disgraceful is more a matter of opinion than anything else I think.
OK, since it is very late here, I would like to draw your attention on this:
http://historytoday.prod.acquia-sites.com/blog/news-blog/kathryn-hadle y/international-colloquium-sheds-new-light-denunciation-france-during- se
and more on the very same subject at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/3543112/Petty- disputes-led-to-Nazi-denunciation-in-WWII-France.html
.
Henri-Georges Clouzot had captured the very essence of denouncement in his film "Le Corbeau", which was hated by both the Nazis and the French Resistance after the Liberation. If you like old movies, you should not miss this one.
One of our public channels broadcasts once in a while a miniseries (that will eventually turn into a large series) which is a very good one on WWII (the first time I find that a French series match its American counterparts!). More here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5423276/French -TV-series-confronts-reality-of-wartime-collaboration.html
. I don't know if you can lay your hands on one of these DVDs abroad, but it's really worth watching it.