"NO MATTER HOW THEY CHANGE HER..."
by Rita Kramer
        Nothing can be more disillusioning than finding out that the love of one’s youth was a whore.
        Remember what we grew up knowing about France? Glorious France, cradle of Liberty Equality, Fraternity, of the Enlightenment and the Rights of Man… Beautiful France, home of the arts of living, of exquisite food and glamorous couture, to say nothing of its great painters and poets…
        Which of us did not wistfully hum “The last time I saw Paris,” want to eat like the French, vacation on the Riviera, use expressions like voila and je ne sais quoi whenever possible, thrill to Edith Piaf sobbing Non, non, je ne regrette rien…
        And who could blame us? Wasn’t gallant France the tragic symbol of World War II? Conquered by a brutal enemy, resisting heroically, and finally liberating herself…or so the story went. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it was a story all right. Probably the most effective work of fiction to come out of the war, it should have won its author a literary prize instead of just the presidency of postwar France.
        Charles de Gaulle spent the war years in London, exhorting his fellow Frenchmen to keep the flame of liberty alive, and returned to his native soil as soon as the Normandy beaches had been cleared of the corpses of the American, British and Commonwealth troops that had scaled the Atlantic Wall to free Europe. Once there he congratulated his compatriots on their courage and threw out the only real resisters who had fought the Nazis. Some were Communists, others were the British agents who had been dropped into the darkness of occupied France with Churchill’s order to “Set Europe ablaze” and had proceeded to carry out sabotage and subversion. To them de Gaulle said, “Your place is not here” and he gave them a few hours to get out of the country. His reasoning was that they had not been working for France but for a foreign power. He meant England.
        Contrary to what the world was led to believe, France was not conquered, it fought for a few days and then surrendered. When they saw the Germans coming the army officers gave up and left their men, and the government leaders went south. Literally. And were only too eager to come to terms with the invaders, arranging an armistice that would leave them in charge of about a third of their country. To what ends, we will come to later.
        Nor did the French resist. Yes, there were pockets of resistance—clandestine newspapers mainly. But most people, understandably exhausted by a war only twenty years behind them that had left many families missing a husband or a son, were only too happy to avoid conflict—and the Germans arrived on their best behavior, delighted to be in Paree instead of on the Russian front. Paris, in particular, took them to its heart, so warm and gay. That first summer women in their flowered dresses and those silly little hats tripped along arm in arm with the handsome men of the Wehrmacht in their splendid uniforms as they ate in the same restaurants and shopped in the same boutiques and walked on the same boulevards that had become synonymous with the good life. It was only later, when things began looking less rosy for the Germans and the outcome of it all became less clear, that the occupiers became less desirable companions. They began requisitioning food, which led to shortages in French cities, and then shipping men off to work for the war effort in Germany—in exchange for French prisoners of war, of whom they had quite a glut. It was only when they instituted compulsory labor for young men (Service du Travail Obligatoire) that a revolt took place. The young men took to the hills, called themselves Maquis (for the rough shrubbery where they hid) and were organized, armed and trained in large part by those Brits who had come to do that job and who were among the leaders of the groups of saboteurs and snipers who kept German tanks from reaching the Normandy beaches in time to repulse the invasion.
        Meanwhile, what of the third of the country that was ruled by the French themselves from Vichy? The venerable Marshal Petain and his deputy Pierre Laval lost no time in doing everything they could to avoid annoying their Nazi colleagues. While the old man told his people to look upon him as their father and assured them that he would rid their country of the Bolsheviks and Jews who had betrayed them, French functionaries exhibited their bureaucratic genius by rounding up all the Jews who had sought asylum in the country that had given the civilized world the concept of human rights, and eventually began adding Jews who were French citizens. It began gradually, as those things do, first expelling the Jews from schools, then from the professions, then from businesses, then prohibiting them from sitting in public parks or using telephones. Neighbors were glad to identify Jews who might have gone unnoticed and informing became a lucrative business. After all, one said with a gallic shrug, c’est la guerre. And with the wartime housing shortage it was a good way to come by an apartment.
        Once the Jews were required to wear a yellow star on their clothing most of the French had the decency to look away. Probably not too many noticed the elderly gentleman with his carefully trimmed moustache and old-fashioned cane who wore his Legion d’Honneur and other medals just above his star of David. Those were hard times for everyone, after all, and if you lived in the apartment buildings with a clear view of the concentration camp of Drancy, just outside Paris, one of the many such collection points for Jews, you could pull the shades down. Then you might not notice that there were very few Germans around. It was French cops who knocked on the doors of the Jewish families and pulled young and old out and loaded them onto the buses, driven by regular French bus drivers, and delivered them to the camps, administered by French men and women who relieved them of whatever valuables they had brought with them and eventually put them on the buses again and got them to the train station where they were loaded—by Frenchmen—onto the cars that would take them, well, wherever they were going. It was no business of the decent Frenchmen whose job it was to get them onto the trains, or those railroad employees who ran them, to wonder where they would end up.
        Not a pretty story, and certainly not the one we all believed at war’s end. As a matter of fact it took years, about thirty to be more or less exact, before the truth of the French role in World War II began to come out. An American historian, Robert Paxton, was the first to write about Vichy France and its role in the extermination of European Jewry. Then other historians began to look into the matter, both in the U.S. and in France, where anger and resistance (real this time) met the early attempts to shed light on the sordid facts. Eventually, as the memoirs of living witnesses and the available documents began to pile up, France’s shameful record was exposed. But only piece by piece.
        Just this morning, in the New York Times (March 20) we read that the French National Railroad is being sued (not for money, for an apology) for its role in the deportation of some 76,000 Jews from France between 1942 and 1944. Of course we are shocked, shocked.
        The French are known for their sensitivity, their subtlety. Here are two small facts to add a soupcon of nuance to the story of wartime France. Pierre Laval insisted on putting the Jewish children, as young as two or three, who had been torn from their screaming mothers, on special convoys transporting them eastward. The Germans were surprised; they hadn’t asked for the children. Laval reasoned that those children might grow up to make trouble for France. He underestimated the power of the myth, the indifference of the world. One of those children who survived would tell anyone who was interested the curious fact that when the neighborhood gendarme loaded her family on the buses he went back to make sure their little dog would be left with the concierge so nothing would happen to it. She was only seven at the time but she was left with the distinct impression that the policeman, a family man of the neighborhood, cared more about the dog’s fate than about hers.
        Yes, there were those among the French who resisted and those who protected and saved Jews. Whether there were as many as there should have been is a moot point. What should be clear though is that the French have not suddenly descended into villainy from nobility as they maintain a foreign policy that protects and encourages brutal dictatorships. They’re only looking out for themselves. After all, c’est la vie.
Rita Kramer has written for Commentary, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Newsday, The International Herald Tribune and other newspapers and magazines in the U.S. and abroad. Her most recent book is Flames in the Field: The Story of Four SOE Agents in Occupied France (Penguin)
Re: the French
The Bunny and the Snake
Once upon a time (allegedly) in a nice little forest, there lived an orphaned bunny and an orphaned snake. By a surprising coincidence, both were blind since birth.
One day, the bunny was hopping through the forest, and the snake was slithering through the forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake and fell down. This, of course, knocked the snake about quite a bit.
"Oh, my," said the bunny, "I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to hurt you. I've been blind since birth, so, I can't see where I'm going. In fact, since I'm also an orphan, I don't even know what I am."
"It's quite OK," replied the snake. "Actually, my story is much the same as yours. I, too, have been blind since birth, and also never knew my mother. Tell you what, maybe I could slither all over you, and work out what you are, so at least you'll have that going for you."
"Oh, that would be wonderful" replied the bunny. So the snake slithered all over the bunny, and said, "Well, you're covered with soft fur; you have really long ears; your nose twitches; and you have a soft cottony tail. I'd say that you must be a bunny rabbit."
"Oh, thank you! Thank you," cried the bunny, in obvious excitement. The bunny suggested to the snake, "Maybe I could feel you all over with my paw,
and help you the same way that you've helped me."
So the bunny felt the snake all over, and remarked, "Well, you're smooth and slippery, and you have a forked tongue, no backbone and no balls. I'd say you must be French".
Posted by: Stephen Rittenberg on March 21, 2003 06:15 PMWhile it's undeniable that the Chirac government is trying to maximize personal and French national interests in this affair, another factor to take into account in assessing their behavior is the radical turnaround in French military prestige in the past 150 years.
Since the debacle at Sedan that ended the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, the French have been regarded as a second-rate military power, with more than a little justification. Yet before that, no nation in the world was regarded as superior to France on the battlefield -- a record of French military preeminence that stretched back to the Hundred Years War.
The French have smarted over the loss of la Gloire ever since. Due to their cultural need to see themselves as the pinnacle of civilization, the French reaction to the superior martial prowess of other nations, such as the U.S. and Britain, is to sneer at it rather than challenge it, to try to suppress or restrain it rather than allow it free rein.
Note how French military initiatives have worked out in recent years. The floating disaster called the de Gaulle. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. The intervention in Ivory Coast. With a record like that, I'd be sullen and resentful about other nations' flexing of their military muscles myself.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto on March 23, 2003 01:59 PMI loved what John McCain said about France being like the matron who's still trying to dine out on her looks...It made me wonder why England--arguably a much more powerful Empire at its height--doesn't share France's inferiority complex. The conclusion I've come to is that they are both like aging females, just different sorts. England has aged gracefully. She hasn't dyed her hair, lifted her face or tried to get away with wearing spandex or a g-string on the beach. In fact, since it's Oscar night, let's use Hollywood as a source of an apt analogy. England is Meryl Streep and France is Zsa Zsa Gabor.
Posted by: Deb on March 23, 2003 04:06 PMAre the pro-wars so empty inside their cranium they think a big fat rant is a sensible demonstration ?
It explains, basically, the french weren't that unhappy of being occupied. Nice revisionism lessons. Whatever. Then it explains why : the germans weren't that bad , because they were happy to be in Paris, at peace. Germans were friendly with everyone, making the occupation a very smooth one at first.
I first thought this was a comparison with the Iraqis ruled by a dictator. I thought, is it trying to prove that iraqis may not want to be freed ? Weak demonstration...
No ! It draws the conclusion that french are (genetically ?) inclined to be friendly with dictators... It's even weaker ! It's called well written "rant" at best, and at worst, brutal propaganda.
Especially if you face the fact that USA have been more than friendly with every dictator they've settled, including Saddam Hussein, and others, since WW2.
Nobody ever suspected this could be genetic though. Only Hitler believed these things could be genetic... Perhaps some people in the USA happened to find some truth in Hitler's thoughts.
Perhaps that would be why USA didn't want to go to war against Hitler in 40.
Why they had "the dictator" censored when Chaplin tried to release it...
Why they only moved when Pearl Harbor happened, and The Soviet Union started to re-conquer Europe.
Mmm. That makes sense.
Posted by: Slone on March 29, 2003 11:30 AMSlone's comments are ridiculous. No one said France was genetically predisposed toward collaborating with dictators. This is a weak straw man. The context of this piece suggested the problem was cultural.
Yes, the US did not go to war with Germany in 1940. However, we did do a great deal to provide succor to the British at this time. And ultimately, we did fight the Nazi evil. And then we stared down totalitarian communism in Europe, without much help or even sympathy from France. Since then we militarily removed Milosevic and Noriega from power, were decidedly unfriendly to Castro, Qadafi, Aidid, and others.
If Slone thinks pro-wars are empty-headed, then arguing that we have been universally friendly to dictators is an unfortunate argument. Unfriendliness to a dictator is the precise cause of this war.
By the way, Francis, though I agree with the tenor of your post, the Hundred Years War was a source of shame for France rather than glory. They were dominated in battle and militarily occupied by Britain over the course of a century. France has been respected militarily in the past due its great potential, but apart from Napoleon, rarely for its actual performance in war.
Posted by: Peter McNaughton on April 1, 2003 12:09 AMThe "genetic" was more like a sarcastic note. But thinking it's cultural rather than genetic is just as dumb, that was the point.
USA has been friendly with quite a bunch of dictators. Saudi Arabia is a nice democracies for instance. China as well.
Augusto Pinochet was settled by the USA on the corpse of a democracy.
The reality of what happened in 39 seemed to be a bit too complex for you. Maybe you should read real history books.
The excitment Germans felt about going to war for Hitler is exactly the same as the excitment Bush has created in the american society.
Hitler used religion, fear of the violent bolchevik atheism, latent antisemitism, violences against german communist to make him look like the strong man germans needed.
Just replace atheism by islam, bolchevik by terrorists, antisemitism by arabophobia, violences against bolcheviks by war in Iraq, and you get the same nice picture.
Posted by: Slone on April 9, 2003 09:03 AM