Theme: Relationships between society and its past

Key terms to know for this part of the lesson: -memoralisation of the past -collective memory -memory -history -purification -Malgré-Nous -Résistancialisme -Thesis of the broadsword and the shield

Key Terms to know

MEMORIES BEING UNCLEAR, NOT LUCID, FAR FROM THE HISTORICAL TRUTH

After the Liberation in 1944, there is a will of uniting the nation, to reconcile French people in the pain of the war. The will that all French people are united in the pain and have the same wounds.  Eg:  poster of the minister of war's prisoners, deportees and refugees (1945) aim: all victims of the war: one deportee (German Concentration Camp), war's prisoner and one man (forced to work in Germany in factories STO ( forced labour)). All of them are together and share their wounds. Unity in the same and only one pain.    Problem: memory which wants to unite people who had suffered but because of different things. The deportee suffered much than the man who was forced to work (STO).    Henry Rousso (French Historian) : " a memory which includes different points of view (different memories like the Jewish memory) No specific case for the Jewish memory showing that the French society is not able, not ready, to face its past.  However, some organisations struggle to let these forgotten memories  be heard, memory begins diverse, plural.             

Ilssontunis (binary/octet-stream)

The representation of resistant France Since the Liberation, two dominant groups want to glorify France by focusing on Resistance. ( collective memory). Gaullists ( supporting De Gaulle) : 25/08/1944 De Gaulle's speech : " France releases itself". Here the whole France is associated to Resistance. FRANCE= RESISTANCE  "Paris got freedom by the help and support of the whole France" False cause freedom was possible thanks to D-day and the allies.    Communists: glorifying Resistance's heroes and martyrs The Party of the shot: this poster shows a widow with her child. This woman is sad because she had lost her husband during the war but she smiles at the same time as a way to say that his husband had militated against the Nazis.  There is an instrumentalisation, a manipulation of the memory  Remind: At the beginning of the war, 39-41: non-agression pact between Stalin and Hitler. Therefore, the Communist Party wants to erase its first collaboration with the Nazis.  Another example of collective memory. Communist's Resistance has a a stronger claim on collective memory than this pact because it glorifies the action, of the Communist Party in Resistan,ce.       

Affiche Pc 1945 (binary/octet-stream)

When the memory is confronted to tensions and amnesia

First appearances of the syndrome of Vichy (The French historian Henry Rousso dubbed this new attitude ' The Vichy Syndrome ').    At first, there is the will to forget about that painful past, to move on, to get over it, because there is a difficulty for France to accept the fact that the French Government has collaborated with the Nazis.    -Amnesty laws (1951-53) for collaborators -purifications (very savage, repression savage or legal against the ones who worked with the Nazis) during which collaborators were condemned.  Some of them enjoyed amnesty laws in 1951-1953.  -the movie "Nuit et Brouillard" (Night and Fog) shows the life conditions in concentration and extermination (death) camps. And during the movie, a french policemam watching the Pithiviers's camp (in France loiret 1941) is blurred so this censorship shows how far the French attitude towards this past. The French society doesn't want to recongnize their responsability in the deportation and extermination of the jews. 

Nuit Et Brouillard (binary/octet-stream)

Politic tensions and conflicts Tensions in the National Assembly between the Right Wing and the Left Wing. Here, memory is used as a political weapon with amenty laws.    Memorial conflicts:  eg: "Malgré-Nous" (despite us): people from the French regions Alsace and Lorraine being forced to join in the German army). The Oradour's slaughter: The Das Reich Section (S;S) slaughtered French people in the Oradour's village. 14 French People ("Malgré-Nous") participated in this crime.  Trial in Bordeaux (South-West of France) in 1953 People from Alsace-Lorraine: "that was not their fault because they were forced to kill these people by the German army". They were not real culprits but real victims here in that particular case.  Therefore, the "Malgré-nous" were granted amnesty. A decision that people in the village couldn't bear beacause even if these 14 (13 beacause one was a volunteer) were forced to kill, they have killed indeed.  Here, there is the real appearance of the 'Vichy Syndrome' (evocated by the French historian Henry Rousso): a discomfort about the evocation of this past. 

The 'Petain's Myth' leading to a deformed memory and conflicts of memory

Petain: French politic who accepted the German Invasion in France and collaborated with Hitler through the Vichy Regime. Before, he was nicknamed the winner of Verdun (battle during the WW1).  After his death, we wonder how to consider Pétain  leading to many controversies  The poster "Glory and Sacrifice of Pétain" represents Pétain as the protector of France and its inhabitants. Here, there is a positive image of Pétain, while he was the one who collaborated with the Nazi Germany. This poster doesn't show any form of French collaboration with the Germans.  The Right Wing and the right-wing extremsim still consider Pétain as a heroe for France ( the heroe of Verdun) a,nd consider that Pétain has protected French people in 1940 by accepting the German invasion. They want Pétain's remains to stay in Deaumont ( memorial for the WW1). All of that reprensations of Pétain is to forget his involvment in this bleak (dark) past.    Thesis of the broadsword and the shield by the French writer Robert Aron. De Gaulle was the broadsword, the one who kept struggling for the liberation of France, the one who could keep fighting against Germany while Pétain was the shield that protected French People during the German invasion and occupation of France.. Therefore, they were considered as the weapons of the same fight. We want to persuade that Pétain managed to keep France as an independent country which is totally false.    Therefore, there is a refusal to face things, such as they are.         

Téléchargement (1) (binary/octet-stream)

Caption: : Poster "Glory and Scarifice of Pétain" published in 1951

The construction of a memory glorifying Resitance and official in the sixties

Hg Annale Es L 2010 Img01 (binary/octet-stream)

Caption: : Extract of a textbook from 1964: relevant to show the representations of France and the war of this era. Hyperbole about the number of resistant people, its impact, there is NO evocation of the deportation and extermination of the Jews, no evocation of the French collaboration with Germany. A true example of the collective memory beacuse this memory is passed down to future generations(textbook therefore adressed to children (pupils).

There is the representation of all France being resistant 'Resistentialisme': french term meaning the will to expand a particular image of France during the war (WW2) in order to exagerrate the importance (the role) of Resistance (number, impact, allies being underated, France assimilated to Resistance, glorification of Resistance's heroes (martyrs) ). This term is a neologism created by the French historian Henry Rousso in 1987 to qualify (describe) the concept of France being UNANIMOUSLY RESISTANT. Alreday, we had after the war, this importance of Resistance in memories but with De Gaulle and his comeback in 1958 (1958-1969) (becoming the First President of the Fifth Republic. He introduces a memorial politcy (= all decisions and politic actions aiming to influence the representations of a particular past). Here, De Gaulle wants to forget the collaboration part in the WW2 past.  1960: Inauguration of the memorial of fighting France ( to glorify RESISTANCE).  1964: transfer of Jean Moulin's ashes (Jean Moulin was a resistant working for De Gaulle in order to unite all the resistant groups. He was captured and tortured by Klaus Barbie and died in 1943) to the Pantheon ( memorial where key historical actros remain as Victor Hugo, Jean Moulin,...), which is a political decision from De Gaulle. This transfer is a real ceremony during which André Malraux (Frecnh writer) gives a powerful speech glorifying Moulin (De Gaulle) saying this importance of Jean Moulin and his role in RESISTANCE. He ends his speech by stating : "Today, Youth of France, may you think of this man and [...] his poor face which was the face of France'. This speech is directly an evidence of the collective memory ( FRANCE=RESISTANCE), so there is a manipulation of the memory.         

During his mandate, he inaugurates numerous (approximately 20) Resistance memorials : -Memorial of Resistance and national necropolis (Chasseneuil-sur-Bonnieure) -National monument to the Resistance and resistance movements of France (Mont-Mouchet) -Memorial of Charles De Gaulle (Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises) -National monument of Resistance (Plateau des Glières) -Museum of the National Resistance (Champigny-sur-Marne)       During 25 years, the memories of the WW2 have stayed in denial but a shift occurs from the end of sixties and the beginning of seventies. 

The Memories faced to History

The awakening  of the memories  There is a new point of view, a new vision on this dark past. The French society has a new look towards the German invasion's years. Why? Many factors explain this shift of attitude. 1) French youth has a spirit of rebellion ( demonstrations in May 1968, youth taking independance) There is a questioning of the authority, the official word, the official memory (introduced by De Gaulle). Also, the youth of 1968 represents the babies of the Baby-Boom (Baby-boom generation) after the WW2, which hasn't experience the war. Therefore, all these people are in a quest, looking for more visions of these dark years.   

Two vectors that generate the shift of the visions on the representations of the war

Through the cinema, there is a tendency to stop glorifying the war. Eg: The movie "The Sorrow and the Pity" shows different people who have known the war. 1) a woman who supported during the war the Vichy Regime so she was pro-Pétainist. That questions the Pétain's representation ( contradicting Resistentialism). 2) men who were resistants during the war and during the report, they complain about the fact that during this dark period they were considered as terrorists and still. That information is significant because it is contradicted to the concept of Resistentialism ( proud and glory towards Resistance). 3) A man named De La Mazière who assumes the fact that he collaborated with the Nazis. All these different testimonies deliver the image of a divided France, not resistant, largely passive and poor and this film does not support at all the idea of a France united and devoted to Resistance.  Therefore, here, there is a questionning of the official word, the official memory delivered and supported by the French Government.       

59308 (binary/octet-stream)

Caption: : The sorrow and the pity by Marcel Ophuls. The film consists in many testimonies of people who have known the war in Clermont Fererant.

Another film is Lacombe Lucien by Louis Malle in 1974. This film shows how a great part of the French society here the French agricultural society through the character of Lacombe Lucien working in the German army. This film provoked many controversies. People being angry and not comfortable about this indictment. Here again, this film is in conflict with the idea that has society at this era about WW2.  The films represent a strong and powerful vector (accessible to a large public,..) that brought a questioning of the representations of the WW2 and also controversies.    Another vector of change in considering the representations of WW2 is the significant work of historians.   The Historians' work on these dark years (years of occupation and collaboration) is vital. Historians become to be more and more interested.    Importance of the American historian Paxton In his book, he makes aware of the fact that the French Governement has deliberately collabored/worked with Germany and particularly in the deportation and extermination of the Jews and that he explained this collaboration for two reasons.  1) France wanted to guarantee its independence despite German invasion which is completely false because every sensible historian knows that after the armistice signed by Pétain (22/06/1940), France lost its entire independence.  2) Collaboration with Germany allowed France to benefit a importance role in Europe (in case of a German victory).  Therefore, with Paxton's book, the myth of broadsword and shield (stated by Aron) was collapsed. Paxton focuses about the great passivity/inaction of French people during the war ( passive collaboration). The representation of Pétain accepting/agreeing the armistice and the collaboration just to protect France and French people is destroyed. French Governement has deliberately worked with its former enemies and was not a victim, obliged to accept the collaboration. It was an active collaboration. ACTIVE COLLABORATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND PASSIVE COLLABORATION FROM FRENCH SOCIETY (FRENCH PEOPLE). (eg: René Bousquet: General Secretary of Vichy police who set french police collaboration in the profiling, the arrest and the deportation of the Jews in France). Paxton's work doesn't focus on Resistance as historians' ones at this era did but his work focuses on French COLLABORATION (a part that wanted to erase/forget French Governement by glorying instead RESISTANCE).  Paxton's work generates the interest of numerous/many historians on French collaboration/Vichy bringing a look with more lucidity on these years.   

   THE AWAKENING OF THE SHOAH MEMORY This memory being kept apart (set aside) from all memories of WW2. (beacause this memory was linked to French collaboration and also Resistance was the only memory that was glorified) but after 1970, the Shoah memory becomes more significant, more crucial among allthe memories of WW2, in the collective memory.  This memory was kept in silence since the end of WW2, people didn't want to rember. A French politician named Simone Veil (who was deported to the Auschwitz's camp and lost her parents and her brother) tells in her book 'A life' the relationship that had the French society towards the Jewish memory: 'How many times did I hear people's astonishements saying "What, did they come back? That proves that it was not that terrible" [...]. For a long time, the deportees disturbed. [...] We wished to speak but they didn't want to listen us. [....]Nobody was interested about what we had lived in these camps'.  Also she questions Resistancialism by stating that deportees didn't revceive the attention that received the resistants. She ends by stating that resistants had chosen their fight, so their fate while jews did not and "were shameful victims, tattooed animals".    Why and How did the awakening of the Shoah memory happen? In 1961, Eichmann, a nazi who worked for the deportation/extermination of the Jews is judged and condemned/sentenced to death in Israel. During the trial, some survivors testified. That event provokes the liberation of the Jews' speech and particularly in France. More and more Jews began to talk about the Shoah and French society had to face with that memory now.         

Many factors allowed the Jewish memory to become a memory that has to be remembered. Some associations as the Serge and Beate Klarsfeld's one who wanted the Jewish memory to be listened and also their association aimed to track the people responsible for the deportation/extermination of the Jews. There is the introduction of a duty to remember, a moral duty: people have to know what happened to do justice to the victims.  The non respect of that duty leads to a moral injunction. Here again, movies represent a huge power to introduce an,d make important that duty.  Shoah by Claude Lanzmann in 1985 which consists of testimonies of people who had been to camps. The aim was to collect testimonies of that survivors before they die with their memories.  Also in 90s: Claude Gayssot's law penalizing any call to the racial hatred and to the negationism (denial of Shoah) because they would not give justice to victims.  The Shoah memorial in Paris was created. Also: the Winter Velodrome memorial in Paris, the Museum-memorial of Drancy,...    

Téléchargement (2) (binary/octet-stream)

Caption: : Here, Beate Klarsfeld struggles (wants justice) so that Kalus Barbie be condemned for his crimes.

Things moving to peace? The French government under Jacques Chirac's presidency recognizes in 1995 the Fre,nch Government's responsability in the collaboration so in the deportation/extermination of the Jews: "Yes, the criminal madness of the invader (= Germany) has been assisted by the French people, the French Government. (SNCF) That contrasts with François Mitterrand (French President between 1981 and 1995) and his speech in 1992 stating "The Republic is not responsible of the Vichy's acts", being the last demonstration of the Vichy Syndrome.  Some people who took part in the war and who were forgotten are introduced in the collective memory. eg: 'Justes' (people who helped the Jews and saved them risking their lives' safety), also soldiers from colonies (movie: 'Natives' by Rachid Bouchared in 2006). Therefore, memories of the WW2 (About Resistance, collaboration (Vichy), Shoah) have evolved and that evolution leads to memories seen with more lucidity and shaping a historical truth.  Memories, being for a long time in the denial and painful, seem to be soothed/allayed. But..... still controversies (Guy Môquet communist activist, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy (2007-2012) wanted that in each high school of France, Môquet's letter be read) therefore he was accused of manipulating the memory.