mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Like Father Like Daughter
Le Pen Denies French Complicity In Holocaust

So much for rehabilitating the National Front: two weeks before the French head to the polls, Marine Le Pen has sparked outrage over comments denying French complicity in a wartime roundup of Jews. Reuters:

Far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen drew protests from her political rivals and the Israeli government on Monday by denying the French state’s responsibility for a mass arrest of Jews in Paris during World War Two. […]

“I think France isn’t responsible for the Vel d’Hiv,” Le Pen said on Sunday, referring to the German-ordered roundup by French police of 13,000 Jews in July 1942. […]

Le Pen’s rivals pounced on her comments, which could set back her attempts to clean up the image of her anti-immigration National Front and distance it from the anti-Semitic views of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, the party’s founder.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the Le Pen family tree—and her rivals aren’t going to let the voters forget it. Emmanuel Macron is already hammering the point home, seeking to tie Le Pen to her anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying father, whom she expelled from the party in 2015.

Though Jacques Chirac owned up to the state’s responsibility for the Vel d’Hiv roundup in 1995, Le Pen is relitigating the issue, tapping into buried resentments by attempting to deflect responsibility for France’s wartime crimes to individual collaborators and Vichy officials. “In reality, our children have been taught they had every reason to criticize [France], to see only its darkest aspects,” Le Pen has said. “I want them to be proud to be French again.”

However Le Pen spins this, her words are a reminder of the ugly strains of anti-Semitism and historical revisionism still present in the National Front, despite her efforts to give the party a respectable makeover. Voters who up until now may have preferred to sit the elections out may have just been given a solid reason not to.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Skynyrd777

    The Vichy regime protected French Jews better than any other scenario at the moment. A collapse of the institution would have been dramatic for the jewish communities, just look at the baltic states examples. So technically, Le Pen is right.

    • Andrew Allison

      It is certainly the case that the extermination rate for French Jews was very much lower than in the German-governed Baltic states, the northeastern part of Poland and the west part of the Belarusian SSR (Reichskommissariat Ostland). In France, however, the Vichy government and French police did, in fact, do German’s the dirty work.

      • f1b0nacc1

        The Germans used to have a saying to the effect that “If you needed to produce 100 Jews, go to the nearest French town and ask for 50”

        In fairness, there is more than a bit of evidence that this same quote was used with the Polish as the villains. I suspect that it says more about the French (and the Polish) than anything else…

      • Tom

        It was also, however, higher than for several of Germany’s allies during the war, including (I think) Romania and Bulgaria.

  • ——————————

    With all the [really] important issues in France and Europe, I hope their voters don’t vote based on this nonsense….

  • jeburke

    Maybe she can “Make France Great Again” by returning to the glory days of June 1940.

    • f1b0nacc1

      Actually if she wants to talk about the glory days of France, I would strongly suggest going back a bit further, as the Germans invaded on May 10, 1940, and immediately eliminated any glory that the French might have then or in the future.

      Quite frankly, I would suggest going back to before 1870, perhaps even to say mid-June of 1815?

  • solstice

    Well, it’s no surprise that TAI has joined the leftist mainstream media in pouncing on the slightest opportunity to defame Madame Le Pen as anti-Semitic. What she said was that the Vichy authorities at the time were responsible for implementing Nazi decrees, not France in its entirety — which is true. TAI is a disgrace.

    • Andrew Allison

      She really did say “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv.”, adding “I think that, generally speaking, if there are people responsible, it’s those who were in power at the time. It’s not France.” Her subsequent statement that ““Like Charles de Gaulle and François Mitterrand … [I consider that] France and the Republic were in London during the occupation”. She added that the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy regime “was not France” and “This does not at all exonerate the actual personal responsibility of those French who took part in the vile Vel d’Hiv round-up and all the atrocities committed in that period.” is sophistry. The French state did not relocate to London, and the government-in-exile was a government in name only.

      • solstice

        Pull your head out of your butt, Andrew. When she said, “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv,” she was clearly referring to the country as a whole, specifically the exiled French leadership and the majority of French citizens who neither supported nor collaborated with the Nazis. She is totally correct in asserting that the actions of the Vichy regime were not the actions of France as a whole.

      • solstice

        When she said, “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv,” she was clearly referring to the country as a whole, specifically the exiled French leadership and the majority of French citizens who neither supported nor collaborated with the Nazis. She is totally correct in asserting that the actions of the Vichy regime were not the actions of France as a whole.

        • f1b0nacc1

          When the Germans demanded that the Danes turn over Jews for transport, the Danish government and the Danish people declined to cooperate. When the Germans demanded the same thing of the French, the Vichy regime cooperated, and the French people did nothing to resist this monstrous crime. Just because they didn’t actively assist the Vichy police and bureaucrats in their despicable work (and lets remember that the Vichy government was made up of FRENCHMEN, not Germans or some other foreign interlopers), doesn’t excuse them from standing by and letting it happen.

          I agree that this is perhaps not a reason to punish the French people as a whole for the crimes of a few individual Frenchmen. But it is most definitely a reason to shame the French people as a whole for their cowardice and (passive, to be sure) complicity in the act.

          • solstice

            The Germans were far more lenient in their occupation of Denmark than they were in their occupation of France because they respected the Danes as fellow Aryans and therefore did not interfere as much in the Danish government’s decisions. On the other hand, Germany exerted far more control in France and deliberately set out to humiliate it because Germany wanted revenge over World War I and Versailles. That aside, those who are painting Le Pen as anti-Semitic (a label that should never be casually tossed around) over this are deliberately misrepresenting her position and engaging in character assassination — and you know it.

          • f1b0nacc1

            The roughly 500 Danish resistance who were killed during the occupation might disagree with you, but this is hardly relevant. What is relevant is that the Danish authorities did refuse to follow German occupation orders, and the Danish population refused as well. Even assuming that the Germans were more lenient (and actually, I tend to think that you are correct about that), it is indisputable that they (the Danes) risked this lenient treatment by refusing to go along with the German’s commands. The French, on the other hand, sweating under the Nazi yoke, had less to lose, and still cooperated, much to their shame.

            As far as Le Pen being anti-Semitic, I agree that this is a phrase that shouldn’t be tossed around lightly. With that said, there seems little evidence here that there is much reason to assume that the label is most appropriate. I actually give Marine Le Pen a great deal of credit for her intelligence, which is why I do not believe for one moment that she would be stupid enough to believe the nonsense that she is spouting. Now she could be simply opportunistic and dishonest, she might even be (much to my surprise) stupid, and she might be anti-Semitic. I tend to believe that it is the latter, though honestly, I doubt that it matters much. None of these possibilities would qualify as character assassination, and I suspect that *YOU* know that.

            Finally, French behavior during WWII was disgraceful, and it is only because that there was no viable way to defeat Germany without going through France that the French were able to pretend that they were brave allies in the war, rather than the loathsome collaborators that they were. Whatever their motives, they richly deserve the shame that they feel, which was of course the point that I made at the beginning of all this.

          • solstice

            Your account of history is overly simplistic. When the Nazis invaded Denmark, the Danes barely put up a fight because they did not want to sacrifice life and limb for a lost cause and against an overwhelmingly superior enemy (the same calculation made by French civilians whom you describe as disgracefully apathetic). And even former Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen has acknowledged that Danish authorities at the time largely cooperated with and aided their occupiers: http://www.dw.com/en/denmark-apologizes-for-aiding-nazis/a-1573618. To ensure French compliance, the Nazis took millions of French as hostages, forced many into slave labor, and killed about 30,000 resistors or suspected resistance sympathizers. The Danes never faced anything close to this level of coercion and brutality. Furthermore, there was widespread opposition among French civilians to the Vichy regime but a huge limit to what they could actually do given that they were largely unarmed and that Vichy was a Nazi puppet.

            When Le Pen stated that “France is not responsible” for the Holocaust in France, she was not referring to Vichy and other fascist French collaborators. Is she guilty of using imprecise language? Yes. Is she anti-Semitic? No, and to claim that she is based on this IS character assassination.

            Speaking of disgraceful apathy, where was this god of yours when these unspeakable atrocities were taking place? It is omnipotent, so what is its excuse for not intervening? Oh, I forgot, god is “mysterious,” so we’re not allowed to hold it to the same standards that you apply to the disgraceful French citizenry during WWII. My mistake!

          • f1b0nacc1

            You are conflating the rational move by the Danish Army (which wouldn’t have been able to put up good resistance against a Girls School for the Blind) with the passive, but effective, resistance of the Danish civilian population, which consistently refused to go along with German diktats. A latter day Danish PM talking about what the wartime Danish authorities actually did and didn’t do (they cooperated on matters of running the state, not on implementing the various german racial laws, the key point here) is hardly a disinterested party, especially given the nature of modern European governments.

            The Danes openly refused to obey German racial laws (the famous Yellow Star issue is only the best known, but hardly the only case of this), while the French supinely went along with (and in the case of the Jews, enthusiastically complied) with German instructions. Do you seriously mean to suggest that the French were somehow put under greater duress? The Danes were as unarmed as the French, they had more German troops in occupation per capita, and their country was tiny compared to France, which means they had less room to hide or escape from German pursuit. Yet somehow they managed to say ‘no’…

            I am not suggesting that Le Pen is or isn’t anti-Semitic, though given her family history, I might suggest that the burden of proof likely should be upon her. I believe that she is a reasonably intelligent woman, so “imprecise language” strikes me as a fairly weak excuse, especially for someone whose job is primarily based upon her ability to communicate clearly and convincingly.

            This wasn’t “my” God, and I am in no position to, nor do I have any basis to judge Him. On the other hand, i am easily able to understand the behavior of French towns that happily turned over their Jewish neighbors for transportation to death camps, sadly that is all too easy for any student of history to comprehend. If it amuses you to be the adolescent atheist, enjoy…I am quite sure that the Lord takes little note of it, and I do not either.

          • Mike Morgan

            Boom. Ad hominem arguments over religion mean you even admit you lost.

          • ——————————

            Hence the old joke;
            How many Frenchmen does it take to defend France?
            No one knows, it’s never been tried….

          • f1b0nacc1

            My personal favorite:

            “You heard about what happened at the opening of Euro Disney?”

            “During the fireworks, 3 battalions of the French Army surrendered”

  • Suzy Dixon

    I don’t know. What are you supposed to do when you’ve been conquered by Nazis? At the end of the day, this is hilarious given Europeans working with the Chinese Communist Party, the King in Riyadh, and/or the Ayatollah in Tehran, taking part in regime change, and importing Islamists. ALL massive human rights violators.

    • f1b0nacc1

      So we just shrug (admittedly, the French are MARVELOUS at shrugging….grin) and conclude that they (the French people) have no responsibility at all? As I mentioned above (in a reply to solstice) when the Danes were in the same position, they refused to be complicit, and forced the Germans to do their own dirty work. We honor the memory of many during WWII who would not and did not cooperate, are we to simply ignore those who did?

      To be fair (and to my eternal shame) I am not sure that I would have the courage to do the right thing if I were in the same position. I would hope that I could but I would be lying if I said that I knew it. I can, however, say this….if I declined to stand against that sort of barbarity, to place my own safety and comfort above what was right and made myself even passively complicit in such a crime, then I would be ashamed, and I would know that I deserved to be. Let the French who did that be ashamed as well. They deserve no better…

      Note: with regard to your comment about the EU, II agree…but then again, this is hardly a new thing for them, is it?

      • Suzy Dixon

        There was no French state. There was an illegitimate government working for Nazis who, at the end of the day, owned France.

        • f1b0nacc1

          Ah, but the French people were certainly there, and they certainly collaborated with the Germans, even to the extent of cooperating with their genocidal actions. If you want to play games with words (was there a German government or only an illegitimate government controlling the country?) then no population is ever held responsible for their actions during war. Like it or not, there was a French government (Vichy) that until 1943 did not even have any significant German occupation to deal with. Thus both a government and a populace existed

          • Suzy Dixon

            What French people? The partisans fighting Nazis from 1940 to 1944? Even among those who “helped” their conquerors, you are placing a heavier burden on them than the Nuremberg trials placed on enlisted soldiers in the actual German army.

          • f1b0nacc1

            The partisans were outnumbered by the collaborators during WWII by about 10:1, and the partisans themselves were split into multiple competing factions, many of whom were FAR more interested in fighting each other than fighting the Germans. This was a very common complaint among the allies, that their weapons and other aid provided to the ‘Free French) ended up getting diverted into an almost endless number of intercine battles between various groups all claiming to be the ‘true’ resistance.

            As far as ‘what French people’, the overwhelming bulk of the French population was at best apathetic, and at worst cooperative with the German efforts during the war. There is a good reason why the Germans treated France as a rest area for their troops (they had only 3 combat ready divisions – all infantry – to garrison the whole country until 1943, and even after that most of the garrisons where 3rd rate static divisions none of which were at anything near full strength), and why France was one of the very few areas during WWII where the German occupation actually ‘turned a profit’.

            I am not suggesting that the French be punished for their behavior during the war, but the idea that they were passive victims, with no responsibility whatsoever for what happened is simply nonsense. They should be ashamed of what they permitted to happen, and of their supine acceptance of it while it happened. France has a long and shameful history of antisemitism, and their passive cooperation with the Germans should come as a surprise to nobody…it certainly wasn’t a surprise to the Germans.

          • Suzy Dixon

            You don’t know that lol (about the numbers). And collaborators? You misspelled conquered people. There was no French state. This isn’t hard. France was conquered. When it comes to individuals, put it this way. Ten million were deployed on the eastern front. That’s where most atrocities took place. The courts thought perhaps 400,000-500,000 of those had some role in actual war crimes…there weren’t anywhere near that many executions. Albert Pierrepoint was a busy man, but not that busy.

            The reason is simple. The state is a real thing, and it has real power over people. When systemic abuse or crimes against humanity become a state policy, then the perpetrators are the decision makers and officers because they make decisions, and they have power to change the state’s direction. Enlisted soldiers and especially conquered populations are coerced by the enormous power of the state/invader.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Regarding the ratio of collaborators to resisters, that is the estimate of the US military during the war (I don’t have a cite immediately at hand, will try to find one for you later), and Churchill was known to have offhanded thrown around similar estimates. Nobody will EVER know the exact number, but there is little doubt that collaborators (defined as people who actively participated in support of the German war effort, as opposed to simply normal people living their lives under occupation) far, far exceeded those in the resistance.

            I would take the whole ‘they were conquered and thus not responsible for their actions’ argument a lot more seriously if it weren’t for the fact that in many other areas where the Germans were occupiers, this was not the case. The Danes and Norwegians refused to comply on a fairly large scale (sufficiently so that even the Germans acknowledged it) and in Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Czechoslovakia, the resistance to German occupation that included widespread non-cooperation with German economic and ‘social’ (i.e. genocide-related) demands. Certainly this was uneven (for instance, Poland actively, even enthusiastically cooperated), but there is no real doubt that it happened, as even the Germans were forced to concede. The French are more than simply a government, and the idea that they can simply pretend that they have no responsibility for what happened is special pleading of the worst sort.

            Individual German soldiers were in fact prosecuted for war crimes, but only where it could be proven that they actually participated in specific crimes. Higher ranking officers often were prosecuted for their complicity in such crimes under the legal doctrine of corporate responsibility (i.e. that they should have known about it, and that they as higher officers had a responsibility to prevent it in the first place) even when there was no evidence that they explicitly ordered it. But the German people as a whole were (correctly) shamed by their participation in such horrors, and to their credit have accepted that shame for the most part. Though the individual Frenchmen who were involved in crimes of this sort were often prosecuted (though many managed to avoid this), but those Frenchmen who simply ratted out their neighbors, or quietly cooperated without calling attention to themselves (like many in Germany who did little more than obey the laws or simply cooperate with the police, etc.) escaped any serious censure.

            We (correctly) regard those who refused to cooperate with these monsters as heroes, particularly because they had the courage to defy the awesome power of their conqueror. We shame their memory by refusing to call out those who didn’t just simply stand by and watch, but actively helped the conquerors in their evil work.

          • Suzy Dixon

            Hang on. Let’s stay focused here, two points. First point, the article in question talks about the French state… The French state did not exist in 1942. The Reuters author literally doesn’t know that France was conquered in 1940. Worse, they know such a basic fact, yet they are lying to pump revisionist history. That makes me both laugh and feel sad for them.

            Second point, if you want to talk about individuals in these conquered lands who, for whatever reason, worked with Nazis, then fine. Of course, that is a completely different argument to have since we’re not talking about the French state. You have to figure out who was actually coerced versus genuinely interested.
            And if you want to have this argument, then you have to revisit and argue against the Nuremberg trials. I would love to read your argument, although it might take a few hours because it will have to rebut hundreds of pages of findings and landmark precedent. You have to rehash discussions about the state, what is the state, state power over individuals, what to do when state policy becomes a crime against humanity and on and on.

          • f1b0nacc1

            The French state in fact did exist in 1942, it was called Vichy. It was recognized by most of the world (those states not actively at war with Germany) as the successor to the 3rd Republic, and inherited most of the assets of that state. This is largely irrelevant, however, as the discussion was about the French people, not the French state, this was largely irrelevant. This entire discussion arose out of your comment “what are you supposed to do when you have been conquered”, at which stage I pointed out that the French people have a corporate responsibility. If we argue (as you do) that the French state ceased to exist in June of 1940, then the people living in that geographic location have not disappeared, they retain some responsibility for their actions, whatever the administrative organization you wish to assign to them. That was my point, and it remains so. I am not suggesting that the French government pay reparations, for instance, or that every French town be required to have mandatory sensitivity training, or any such silly nonsense. I am merely suggesting that the French people (i.e. those that lived during this period in that area, and their descendants) retain some residual responsibility and should acknowledge this. Perhaps feeling a bit of shame rather than pretending that also being victimized somehow absolves them of any responsibility for their actions. Individual who committed identifiable crimes should be prosecuted, certainly, but for the most part that ship has sailed.

            Regarding Nuremberg, I would be happy to argue against those trials. For the most part they were an egregious example of “winner’s justice”, and they (and even worse, the trials of Japanese soldiers in the Pacific after the war) were loaded with newly created ex post facto crimes. Note, I am not excusing or defending those who participated in such horrific offenses, nor in some ways I can summon little real regret about the fate of those convicted. With that said, lets not pretend for a single moment that what was done was even remotely motivated by anything other than a desire for revenge and (understandable) outrage at the enormity of their crimes. This wasn’t about law or justice, and pretending otherwise is a serious mistake.

            However…. should you really wish to discuss the nature of most of the convictions that were handed down for the lower-level individuals (i.e. the ones that weren’t hit with “Crimes against humanity” or any of the other made up crimes we used to punish those who were simply evil and deserved it), the logic used to convict them was that individuals had an obligation to disobey unjust or patently illegal laws, and that obedience to the state, even if that state was clearly the established authority, was not a valid defense. When state policy becomes a crime (and lets remember, this same logic was used in the Pacific War Crimes trials as well), then individual obedience to that policy is a crime as well. There are any number of convictions of even very low-level soldiers in both Europe and Asia after the war where this principle was upheld. In those cases where convictions were not returned, almost exclusively there were arguments of mitigating circumstances (overt and unusual coercion, for instance), that were cited as exceptions to the overall doctrine. Much more to the point, individuals claiming that they were covered by such exceptions were universally required to PROVE that they fell into these categories, they weren’t simply given a pass by claiming it.

            You were the one who suggested that a conquered people were somehow immune from criticism or condemnation for their actions in support of a genocidal regime, not I. The burden falls upon you to prove this with something more than unsupported assertions, often made by those very same people accused of these crimes.

          • Suzy Dixon

            It was not a relevant to the author. He made the comment about the French state that didn’t even exist after May, 1940. If you call Nazi occupied France and the Vichy regime the French state then the concept of the state is so loose that it’s utterly meaningless. Of course that’s not the reality, and that’s not what the court found. On the contrary, since the state and state power are so real and so powerful, the court found not only people in conquered lands but even most of the German military to be blameless due to coercion, brainwashing, etc. essentially, you can’t blame people with no money and especially no power for criminal state policy.

          • f1b0nacc1

            The Vichy regime was the French state, there is simply no legal argument that suggests otherwise. The French courts of course found otherwise, but as the Brits would say, “They would say that, wouldn’t they”, i.e. it was clearly in their interest to do so.

            Regarding what the Nuremberg tribunals (not courts, there is a significant difference) found was that individuals who were not accused of SPECIFIC CRIMES could not be convicted of those general crimes (“Crimes against humanity”,’Waging Aggressive War”, etc.) that were created for the express purpose of prosecuting the leadership of the Axis. They were certainly willing to refer individuals accused of specific crimes to those courts that had jurisdiction, and many of those so charged were indeed prosecuted and convicted. At no time did the Nuremberg Tribunals absolve individuals of any crime with which they were charged based upon the doctrine of overarching state power, coercion or other’brainwashing’. In point of fact, this particular defense has been used (unsuccessfully) in any number of cases after the war, and it has been almost universally rejected, as it should be.

            We have in the US (as it was done in Germany, Poland, Belgium, and yes, even France) prosecuted (and convicted) numerous former concentration camp guards and other employees of the Nazi state who were of quite slender means at the time of their crimes. We have never lost even a single case due to the “I was following the legal orders of the state, and I was too poor/powerless to resist” defense. The fact that the Nuremberg Tribunal refused to stretch their already dubious prosecutions to include individuals who were not involved in the leadership of the country, and were not charged with any specific misbehavior is no surprise, but they certainly didn’t absolve those people of blame, and they explicitly referred many of them to the appropriate venues for prosecution.

          • Suzy Dixon

            The Vichy regime in Nazi occupied France was the French state? It’s not just French courts who disagree with you, it was the nuremberg courts and subsequent courts, too, which set much of the modern president for international law on war crime. My goodness.
            Judgement: The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity “A further submission was made that Germany was no longer bound by the rules of land warfare in many of the territories occupied during the war, because Germany had completely subjugated those countries and incorporated them into the German Reich, a fact which gave Germany authority to deal with the occupied countries as though they were part of Germany. In the view of the Tribunal it is unnecessary in this case to decide whether this doctrine of subjugation, dependent as it is upon military conquest, has any application where the subjugation is the result of the crime of aggressive war. The doctrine was never considered to be applicable so long as there was an army in the field attempting to restore the occupied countries to their true owners, and in this case, therefore, the doctrine could not apply to any territories occupied after the 1st September, 1939. As to the war crimes committed in Bohemia and Moravia, it is a sufficient answer that these territories were never added to the Reich, but a mere protectorate was established over them.”

          • f1b0nacc1

            Citing the Nuremberg Tribunal (not a court, and the difference is important) as a precedent (much less a binding one) for anything is a very serious mistake. Certainly modern international law does not hold it to be so. More to the point, suggesting that a Tribunal that accepted ex-post facto laws as the basis for prosecution actually has standing to cite anyone else for creating its own laws as it goes along is risible at best.

            Even if we would choose to though, the British did not have ‘an army in the field’ to active work to liberate France in anything but the most ephemeral sense until 1944. After the Brits were ejected from the Continent in 1940, just exactly where was the army in the field working to restore the occupied countries to their true owners? You MIGHT be able to make a case for the Northern parts of France that were occupied (and largely annexed) by the Germans, but even so, how does any of this change the moral and ethical responsibility of the French people who engaged in collaboration with the Germans? Once again, the question here is not about legal culpability of the French government as a whole, I am unaware of anyone who has made an argument that they have any. The actions of individual Frenchmen during the period of occupation, on the other hand, is indeed entirely another matter, and numerous courts have been quite willing to (successfully) prosecute those individuals.

            We needn’t worry about this Kangaroo court though, we have plenty of similar legal analysis in the post-war period. Conquest of a territory by an aggressor state has been supported, along with the imposition of a new government by that state. One need only look at China in Tibet and Vietnam as two simple examples to see that international law tolerates (and even endorses) annexation by conquest.

            You keep pretending that because the Germans occupied France that the population somehow is absolved of any responsibility for their behavior during that time. This is errant nonsense on stilts, and suggest that these people suddenly lost their moral and ethical compass during that time. As I and others have pointed out, not all countries were this ‘flexible’ in their principles, and it is a disgrace to dishonor their genuine courage by excusing the lack of the same by the French.

          • Suzy Dixon

            No, silly, the findings of the Nuremberg trials are worth much more than our little exchange on this thread, or your opinions. It was called a tribunal because nobody formally agreed to create the ICC yet. The Nuremberg trials and the decisions set much of modern precedent on what constitutes the crime, and who can be held accountable.
            So, we have the French state not existing, and we have a rule of Notsi occupiers who implemented a system make regime of brutality to control people… also came out in the trails. You might want to read this very carefully.

            “The territories occupied by Germany were administered in violation of the laws of war. The evidence is quite overwhelming of a systematic rule of violence, brutality and terror. On the 7th December, 1941, Hitler issued the directive since known as the “Nacht und Nebel Erlass” (Night and Fog Decree), under which persons who committed offences against the Reich or the German forces in occupied territories, except where the death sentence was certain, were to be taken secretly to Germany and handed over to the SIPO and SD for trial or punishment in Germany. This decree was signed by the defendant Keitel. After these civilians arrived in Germany, no word of them was permitted to reach the country from which they came, or their relatives; even in cases when they died awaiting trial the families were not informed, the purpose being to create anxiety in the minds of the family of the arrested person. Hitler’s purpose in issuing this decree was stated by the defendant Keitel in a covering letter, dated 12th December, 1941, to be as follows:
            ” Efficient and enduring intimidation can only be achieved either by capital punishment or by measures by which the relatives of the criminal and the population do not know the fate of the criminal. This aim is achieved when the criminal is transferred to Germany.”

          • Andrew Allison

            This is a waste of time. As her comments make clear, the usually rational Suzy is clearly uninterested in the facts which successive French governments have acknowledged.

          • f1b0nacc1

            I know….and it is sad because normally I enjoy her remarks here.

            Your advice is well taken though, and I thank you for it.

        • Andrew Allison

          Like the ones in Denmark and Bulgaria which, unlike France, refused to cooperate with the Germans?

          • Suzy Dixon

            And the French who didn’t as well. Let’s just throw in Oskar Schindler, too. God bless them. But you’re simply rewriting history to say there was a French state in 1942, and/or that the courts got it all wrong and French “collaborators” and all enlisted Germans for that matter should’ve been prosecuted and met Albert Pierrepoint.

          • Andrew Allison

            Nope. What I wrote was that the PEOPLE of Denmark and Bulgaria prevented their puppet governments from cooperation with the Germans and the French people did not. This is not to say that there was no resistance, just that the vast majority of the population acquiesced to the collaboration– a fact which has been acknowledged by successive French Presidents.

          • Suzy Dixon

            Puppet government. That’s right. There was no French state in 1942. Now, the author of the Reuters article is either so ignorant they don’t know something so simple, or more likely they are revising history to pump a narrative in the present. If you want to talk about individuals then read my comment to f1b0nacc1

          • Andrew Allison

            As I’ve pointed out, the puppet governments in Denmark and Bulgaria were prevented from implementing German polices by widespread protests from the populace. That didn’t happen in France. I’m puzzled by your insistence that something which has been acknowledged by the French government didn’t happen.
            All this, of course refers to the France of 1940, not 2017 (which, as I wrote is what I suspect Le Pen meant). Evaluation of the current rise of antisemitism in France (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dominique-reynie/antisemitism-in-france-fa_b_6178804.html) is complicated by the large, and largely unassimilated, Muslim population.

          • Suzy Dixon

            They most certainly didn’t stop it. You might want to read Darkness over Denmark. Naturally, it’s about Danes risking their lives to do what’s right where as others did not, and you could have a companion book about any of the other countries such as a “Darkness over France” and so on.

          • Andrew Allison

            You’re right, they didn’t stop it but, unlike the French, they didn’t participate in it.

  • Angel Martin

    How extraordinary that this issue would come up again. Thirty years after the Klaus Barbie trial and this issue still has some resonance.

    My only other observation is that the political effect of this may not be what is expected.

    Trump’s most “outrageous” statements actually boosted his campaign, rather than ending it.

    And the Barbie trial, rather than presenting a united France as a hapless victim of Nazi crimes, allowed Jacques Verges to put France on trial for everything that happened in Vichy, and everything that happened in the post-WW2 french colonial occupations.

  • Jon Robbins

    Interesting to see what the focus of The “American” Interest is–Israeli baseball and what Marine Le Pen is saying about the Holocaust.

    Le Pen also said this, which this article does not quote: “I think that, in general, if there are people responsible, it is those who were in power at the time. It is not France,” Le Pen said in an interview with media groups Le Figaro, RTL and LCI. If that is not reasonable, then tell us specifically why. If TAI wants to “litigate” the case then give us a real laydown of the issue. How did it all work?

    But in general, how about focusing on “The American Interest” and not Holocaust, Inc.

    • ——————————

      International affairs, including the holocaust, are of American Interest….

      • Jon Robbins

        We don’t need to hear what every foreign political leader has to say on any given day–about the Holocaust or anything else. There’s too much dual loyalism as it is in this country.

        • ——————————

          It’s not “every” that is covered at TAI. However, the holocaust is important to many here.

          What do you mean by “too much dual loyalism here”?

  • Max Villar

    That is NOTwhat she said! She said that France TODAY has no responsibility for what happened 60+ years ago. Get your facts straight and drop the hysterics.

    • Andrew Allison

      I agree about the hysterics, however, although I strongly suspect that it is what she meant, Le Pen did NOT say “France today”, she said France.

  • Mike Morgan

    Klaus Barbie.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service