Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The FT's article on l'affaire Benalla has been the most read piece on their website for several days.

    An interesting factoid in light of Macron's very serious campaign to lure finance types to Paris in the wake of Brexit.

    Comment


      The French authorities have opened a formal inquiry into the Jardin des Plantes incident Kev noted a few posts ago.

      It also emerged yesterday that Macron visited the Tour de France in the Pyrenees and met with each of the jersey holders, but chose not to make a public appearance because of concern about how his presence would be perceived.

      The hits keep on comin’

      Comment


        Sounds like him and his fascist friend Crase spent the afternoon of May 1st picking off defenceless protesters in the Latin Quarter and beat them up. Wouldn't be surprised if more came forward but it's not easy, it's disruptive, costly, time-consuming etc. and you need solid evidence. I fear that the Jardins des Plantes evidence gathered by the girl's Smartphone might not be enough to really trouble Benalla, there was no CCTV camera there (unlike on Place de la Contrescarpe) and AFAIK you just hear people shout on the phone (which Crase grabbed if I've understood well), but no clear footage.

        That bastard Benalla came up with a bon mot during that TF1 ITW a few days ago: "C'est une affaire d'été, pas une affaire d'état." (in reference to the silly season)

        Comment


          To lose one minister in three months . . .

          The French president, Emmanuel Macron, was struggling to contain a fresh crisis after the resignation of one of his earliest and closest backers, the interior minister, Gérard Collomb.

          Collomb’s departure, which leaves the French government in a state of flux, follows the resignation of the popular environment minister Nicolas Hulot and just as Macron is facing falling approval ratings and a continuing controversy over an Élysée security official who was filmed assaulting people on the edge of a demonstration.

          Collomb, 71, a former mayor of Lyon who had been one of Macron’s most loyal allies, left the government after an extraordinary stand-off with the 40-year-old president, who at first refused to let him go but then announced his departure in the early hours of the morning.

          Comment


            Macron Raids the Left

            https://twitter.com/ronanburtenshaw/status/1052159973420097536

            https://twitter.com/ronanburtenshaw/status/1052174463637352451

            Comment


              https://twitter.com/JLMelenchon/status/1052120276417298433

              Also raided Melenchon's house.

              all on the day they announce a new government.
              Last edited by Nefertiti2; 16-10-2018, 12:41.

              Comment


                Benoit Hamon

                https://twitter.com/ronanburtenshaw/status/1052177546538835968

                Comment


                  Melenchon is not happy

                  https://twitter.com/brutofficiel/status/1052186172968062976

                  Comment


                    This search at Mélenchon’s flat (along with another 15 conducted simultaneously in relation with this financial police enquiry) was done following an investigation which was started in April 2017. I can explain the reasons and background for this particular investigation if you’re interested (same has happened to other French parties recently, notably Front National and MoDem, centrists) but it has nothing to do with Macron believe me, he wasn’t even in office when the whole thing was initiated.

                    As I’ve so often said on here, I dislike Macron (and yes, he’s been far too soft on that cunt Benalla, as I repeatedly wrote on here in July) but give the French justice system some credit, it’s really moved on since Mitterrand, it is far more independent than it was a few decades ago or even under Sarkozy ten years ago. I’ll add that I don’t dislike Mélenchon, his politics I mean, apart from his anti EU position obviously. I dislike his persona though, extremely autocratic, hates journalists etc. (As I explained on here last year, for the duration of the presidential election campaign he was successfully rebranded, by PR guru Sonia Chirikou, as a polite, smiling etc. politician and that’s partly why he nearly made it to the 2nd round, 19.5%, he appealed to far more people than he did in the 2012 Presidentials - 11% - but he is a bully at heart really, he’s been around for a long time and only last year was he bearable).

                    I’ve written at length in the French Presidential 2017 thread on how the French justice system had slowly reformed itself (as far as its links with politics are concerned) over the last 3 decades or so, the clean-up started under Mitterrand really (Rocard Laws of the late 1980s, more independence, more transparency etc.), Or "has had to be reformed" I should say as it certainly didn’t happen naturally, it was reformed incrementally usually after scandals and under pressure from the media and the electorate. Slowly, it has had to cut its links with the politicians in charge and in the main, I believe it has.

                    Consider this for instance. François Bayrou (a stalwart of French politics and leader of the centrist Modem party – 3rd in the first round of the 2007 Presidentials with 19%), who was Macron’s closest political ally* during the second part of the 2017 presidential campaign and was subsequently appointed his Justice Minister in May 2017, was forced to resign in June 2017 after the financial anti-corruption investigators started to zoom in on him for the same reasons as with Mélenchon. The Modem’s HQs were also searched (October 2017), here: Perquisition au siège du MoDem à Paris

                    [*Bayrou is no less than the man thanks to whom Macron was elected president, along with Fillon of course to whom Macron is hugely indebted for self-torpedoing his presidential campaign last year. In Feb. 2017, Bayrou and Macron made a pact and the former pulled out of the presidential race and asked his supporters to vote for Macron, he was worth about 5%. Macron thanked him in two ways, at the June 2017 General Elections by not fielding REM candidates agst Modem candidates in a number of constituencies (Modem got a stonking 43 MPs – as opposed to 2 MPs in the previous GE in 2012) and also personally by appointing him Justice Minister, only to sack him 35 days later when the suspicions for misuse of public funds by the MoDem became more pronounced which prompted an official investigation to be opened]
                    Last edited by Pérou Flaquettes; 16-10-2018, 21:06.

                    Comment


                      And of course, post Rocard Laws on the funding of political parties in the 1980s-90s, the undisputed master in this field is Sarkozy, who else. He conned the state of ~€20 million in 2011-12 (2012 Presidential campaign). The case, known as "L’affaire Bygmalion" is on-going. (Sarkozy has repeatedly denied knowledge of dual accounting and some 18 million euros ($20.1 million) in false invoices issued by the Bygmalion event organization company that meant his campaign costs were more than double the legal limit.) + of course the €50 million he cadged off Gaddafi for the 2007 presidential campaign* + the substantial amounts that the late Liliane Bettencourt gave Sarkozy, via "briefcases full of cash" according to witnesses, one of them being her butler. She did get a little tax rebate mind so it wasn’t wasted money, Ms Bettencourt received a €30 million tax rebate while Mr Woerth was budget minister (Sarko got off scot free for that).

                      Liliane Bettencourt was so confused in her last years that she give away ridiculous amounts to near strangers or friends, she wasn't quite compos mentis towards the end, we’re talking way over €1 billion. There are a few WTF stories about that, particularly about a Parisian photographer who befriended her in the late 1990s, the colourful François-Marie Banier, and was her confidant on and off for 2 decades right up to her death last year. Over time, Bettencourt expressed her affection by giving her platonic friend upward of a billion dollars’ worth of assets.

                      Anyway, Bettencourt’s only daughter once told a story where she arrived at her mother’s humble abode in Neuilly (West of Paris) one evening and found a chequebook stub or similar (bank transfer slip) lying about with on it "€240 million", made payable to François-Marie Banier, she’d written it out that very afternoon or someone had done it for her anyhow. Her mother didn’t remember exactly, she did remember writing "several cheques for low amounts" that morning but wasn't sure of the amounts or who for, maybe it was "only" for €240,000 she added (so it entirely possible she mistook €240,000 for €240,000,000...). Her daughter then searched her study and found another one for the same sort of money (a little less I think, only about €150m that one) made in the morning of the same day! Liliane Bettencourt couldn’t quite remember that one either… She distinctly remembered having had tea & biscuits with that nice and well-mannered man Banier but not having given him €400 million in a just a few hours.

                      Bettencourt’s daughter immediately phoned him and got the money back or most of it anyway. She later sued Banier (and 3 others) for abus de faiblesse (~abuse of a person's weakness) and won. He then counter-sued her, I think it’s on-going. So yeah, I can just imagine Sarkozy and his crew regularly knocking at the door for tea & biscuits.

                      [*the most anyone can give a political party in France is €7,500 per year and per party. Per party because there’s been a rash of dodgy "micro-parties" created in the last 15 yrs that have been set up mainly to circumvent legislation and siphon money in oblique ways].
                      Last edited by Pérou Flaquettes; 16-10-2018, 21:46.

                      Comment


                        New Caledonia will tomorrow go to the polls in a referendum deciding whether they wish to become independent from France.

                        New Caledonia's independence referendum: what you need to know

                        The French territory will vote on severing ties with Paris on Sunday, with indigenous Kanaks hoping for victory


                        Very likely to remain French but even if independence is voted, it wouldn’t be a clean break IMO, more a self-rule kind of governance, the pro-independence FLNKS party has made it clear-ish that they do not want to completely sever ties with France and would prefer to become an "état associé", an associated state (similar to the status enjoyed by Cook Islands with New-Zealand or the Federated States of Micronesia with the USA, just a little stronger than that perhaps). Bizarrely, that vital aspect isn’t stressed at all in the Guardian article.

                        Not sure I agree either with their What will happen after the vote? section, it’s a little more complex and nuanced than what they explain in terms of what sort of independence regime would be implemented. The Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS, the Independentists) has real concerns about potential Chinese interference and would also want to keep close ties with France for that reason. Bizarrely, China isn’t even mentioned in the Guardian article yet China's shadow has been looming over the New Caledonia independence ref for a while.

                        Excellent comprehensive dossier in Le Monde on the subject , incl. a very interesting Live chat with a Le Monde’s correspondent over there
                        who is frank about the complex facets of the vote and populations on the island, what’s at stake etc.

                        This is excellent (in French):



                        This explains the general situation, in English:

                        Comment


                          As an aside, the draw for the 7th round of the French Cup (17-18 November, 11 overseas clubs + the second-tier clubs enter at that stage) was held this week and New Caledonia club AS Magenta will host Bobigny, a Greater Paris club which plays in National 2 (D4, semi-pro but much more semi than pro for newly-promoted Bobigny).

                          It will be tough for the Caledonians, who are managed by former French international Alain Moizan, but it’s a winnable tie for them as Bobigny are really struggling in the equivalent of our League Two. AS Magenta plays in the New Caledonia Super Ligue (they're the title-holders, league has just finished - 17 wins, 3 draws, 0 defeat), which is roughly the equivalent of the Division D’Honneur in the French mainland system, so the 6th tier of French football (DH is now called Regional 1 since 2017 and the creation of the new regions in 2016).

                          It’s been 4 years now that a French overseas club has qualified for the next round (8th round) so hopefully Magenta will buck that trend (D1 clubs enter at the 9th round stage played at the beginning of January, aka round of 32 = our FA Cup 3rd round).

                          https://twitter.com/coupedefrance/status/1057280765967429632

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Pérou Flaquettes View Post
                            New Caledonia will tomorrow go to the polls in a referendum deciding whether they wish to become independent from France.

                            New Caledonia's independence referendum: what you need to know

                            The French territory will vote on severing ties with Paris on Sunday, with indigenous Kanaks hoping for victory


                            Very likely to remain French but even if independence is voted, it wouldn’t be a clean break IMO, more a self-rule kind of governance, the pro-independence FLNKS party has made it clear-ish that they do not want to completely sever ties with France and would prefer to become an "état associé", an associated state (similar to the status enjoyed by Cook Islands with New-Zealand or the Federated States of Micronesia with the USA, just a little stronger than that perhaps). Bizarrely, that vital aspect isn’t stressed at all in the Guardian article.

                            Not sure I agree either with their What will happen after the vote? section, it’s a little more complex and nuanced than what they explain in terms of what sort of independence regime would be implemented. The Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS, the Independentists) has real concerns about potential Chinese interference and would also want to keep close ties with France for that reason. Bizarrely, China isn’t even mentioned in the Guardian article yet China's shadow has been looming over the New Caledonia independence ref for a while.

                            Excellent comprehensive dossier in Le Monde on the subject , incl. a very interesting Live chat with a Le Monde’s correspondent over there
                            who is frank about the complex facets of the vote and populations on the island, what’s at stake etc.

                            This is excellent (in French):



                            This explains the general situation, in English:

                            Very interesting - just one minor point, in that Micronesia now has full UN membership, so can be considered fully independent now, whereas Cook Islands still lack that status, though enjoying full internal autonomy.

                            Comment


                              http://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1059061379410391040

                              Significantly closer than opinion polls had predicted (roughly two-thirds Non), suggests a strong racial divide in the voting.

                              Comment


                                So, it appears that the Elysée has officially walked back ham-handed attempt at having it both ways when it comes to Pétain.

                                On Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron came under fire for endorsing the idea that France should pay tribute to Pétain during a ceremony commemorating the 100th anniversary of the 1918 Armistice that ended World War I. But by the end of the day, amid a torrent of criticism, the Élysée was forced on the defensive, backtracking from the president’s words and asserting that Pétain would not be honored.
                                The attempt to reverse the Mitterrand era consensus as to how to deal with Pétain is just the latest in a series of self-inflicted wounds. I don’t even understand what he was thinking, as it isn’t as if such a gesture would be enough to garner the support of the Le Penistes who have been distorting history in an attempt to rehabilitate Pétain for years.

                                Comment


                                  Yes, I can only assume they thought that it might please a small number of right wing nutters and that no-one else would care, but how they came to that assumption I don't know - particularly as Macron has been fairly sure-footed on France's historical controversies, Algeria in particular.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                    So, it appears that the Elysée has officially walked back ham-handed attempt at having it both ways when it comes to Pétain.

                                    The attempt to reverse the Mitterrand era consensus as to how to deal with Pétain is just the latest in a series of self-inflicted wounds. I don’t even understand what he was thinking, as it isn’t as if such a gesture would be enough to garner the support of the Le Penistes who have been distorting history in an attempt to rehabilitate Pétain for years.
                                    What do you mean by that exactly?

                                    Comment


                                      My recollection of the history of French presidential attitudes towards Pétain is that it was not uncommon for pre-Mitterand presidents to lay wreaths or otherwise commemorate his service in WWI. Early in his first term, Mitterand made clear that he wasn't going to do that while in office, and was followed in that by each of his successors until Macron suggested otherwise. The position included an understanding that it was not objectionable for the French military to commemorate the marshal, but that it was unseemly for a civilian president to do so.

                                      It is possible that I am wrong about the history, but I want to make clear that I was only talking about this very narrowly-defined issue and not the much broader one of Pétain's legacy and place in French history, as to which I would struggle to identify anything resembling a "consensus".

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                        So, it appears that the Elysée has officially walked back ham-handed attempt at having it both ways when it comes to Pétain.

                                        The attempt to reverse the Mitterrand era consensus as to how to deal with Pétain is just the latest in a series of self-inflicted wounds. I don’t even understand what he was thinking, as it isn’t as if such a gesture would be enough to garner the support of the Le Penistes who have been distorting history in an attempt to rehabilitate Pétain for years.
                                        Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                        My recollection of the history of French presidential attitudes towards Pétain is that it was not uncommon for pre-Mitterand presidents to lay wreaths or otherwise commemorate his service in WWI. Early in his first term, Mitterand made clear that he wasn't going to do that while in office, and was followed in that by each of his successors until Macron suggested otherwise. The position included an understanding that it was not objectionable for the French military to commemorate the marshal, but that it was unseemly for a civilian president to do so.

                                        It is possible that I am wrong about the history, but I want to make clear that I was only talking about this very narrowly-defined issue and not the much broader one of Pétain's legacy and place in French history, as to which I would struggle to identify anything resembling a "consensus".
                                        OK, a few things here (yr last post), and in your previous post, I’m going to try to link the two.

                                        Re your “reverse the Mitterrand era consensus”. You're partly right here I think but I would clearly separate two things here about this consensus:

                                        1) You’re right to talk about a consensus in the Mitterrand era on this issue, as (at long last) a form of consensus was being established in French society, manly thanks to historians, academics and journalists, far less thanks to politicians.

                                        2) However, Mitterrand (and many other politicians) were not part of this consensus.

                                        Mitterrand, to say the least, remained extremely ambivalent about Pétain and Vichy right until his death in January 1996 although he did soften a little towards the end, but mainly in private (I've mentioned on here before the book Une jeunesse française: François Mitterrand, 1934-1947 by Pierre Péan on Mitterrand's murky past during WWII. Everyone knew about his past before the book was released in 1994, so that was well established, but this was the first time Mitterrand himself had actually provided the evidence. It is thought that Mitterrand "confessed" to his far right past (until he joined the resistance in 1942) first because it was an open secret and also as s sort of catharsis, he was ill and knew his days were numbered.

                                        Mitterrand had many connections with the extreme right in his youth and twenties (it's always been common knowledge that his late teenage and early adulthood political years in the 30’s were controversial, very right wing) and later with dubious ex-Vichy characters (he himself worked in the Vichy admin before joining the Resistance in 1942), eg René Bousquet.

                                        When you write: "Early in his first term, Mitterand made clear that he wasn't going to do that while in office, and was followed in that by each of his successors until Macron suggested otherwise."

                                        You're right about the first bit, he did say that he wouldn't honour Pétain etc. but then he changed his tune. I am not sure why exactly but I suspect it has to do with his, again, very ambivalent attitude towards the Front National which had just emerged (I can write a short post if you want on how Mitterrand actively helped Jean-Marie Le Pen to grow in importance, it is often said that "Mitterrand made Le Pen", it's exaggerated but there more than a grain of truth in that. By rehabilitating Pétain, Mitterrand must have also known that he was contributing to the rise of the Front National, which he personally wanted to thwart the right, and particularly Chirac who was gaining ground (and of course, Chirac's party,the RPR, won the General Elections in 1986).

                                        Thus, in 1984, and every single year between 1986 and 1992, Mitterrand laid flowers on Pétain’s tomb in the Vendée (or had flowers laid on his behalf), something that wasn’t routinely done by his predecessors, except on three occasions in 1968 (50th anniversary of the 1918 armistice), 1973 (Petain’s coffin stolen) and 1978 (60th anniversary of armistice)

                                        This created controversy, particularly among Jews (eg from Dominique Strauss-Khan, then a minister) but Mitterrand would simply reply that he was a legitimate thing to do to the “Verdun Hero” and that he also put flowers on all the other 7 French WWI marshals and generals who embody the victory over Germany (Joffre, Foch, Gallieni, Fayolle, Franchet d'Espèrey, Lyautey and Maunoury). He tried to minimise it too by saying that his predecessors would also regularly flowers on his tomb (only happened on 3 specific occasions before Mitterrand), that it was a habit of the French administration which he was perpetuating etc.

                                        Another controversy broke out in July 1992 when Mitterrand didn’t make any speech or even say anything on the 50th anniversary of the Rafle du Vél D’Hiv (Vel' d'Hiv Roundup) in July 1992 when many expected him to. Two days before, he even repeated that the French Republic wasn’t responsible for Vichy (cue outrage in the Jewish community and among a portion of the French population). Mitterrand attended the Vel D'Hiv ceremony (reluctantly) but stayed silent.

                                        Post 1992, Mitterrand stopped laying flowers after renewed protests from Dominique Strauss-Khan in particular the CRIF (Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions).

                                        The thing is Mitterrand had a very Gaullist vision of history, for him the Vichy gvt had illegally superseded the French Republic therefore "France" wasn’t responsible for the deportation of Jews, just the few bastards who were running Vichy (an admin that Mitterrand was well acquainted with and maybe he never forgave himself for his past pre 1942).

                                        A few months later, Mitterrand, under pressure, made a gesture towards acknowledging France’s role in the deportation of Jews and gypsies. In 1993, through a decree, he established a "Journée de commémoration des persécutions racistes et antisémites commises sous l'autorité de fait dite 'gouvernement de l'Etat français'".

                                        It was obviously a welcome move but the wording is considered unclear by many historians (it implies that these horrors were perpetrated by a small number of people in charge of "an authority". Mitterrand always refused to say clearly that France/the French gvt at the time was responsible and that was that.

                                        In July 1995, Chirac became the first president to acknowledge unequivocally the responsibility of France in the mass deportation of Jews from France, its responsibility of course in the Vél D’Hiv and generally in the crimes committed by Vichy.

                                        https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/17/w...e-of-jews.html

                                        Chirac Affirms France's Guilt In Fate of Jews

                                        Barely two months after taking office, President Jacques Chirac today publicly recognized France's responsibility for deporting thousands of Jews to Nazi death camps during the German occupation in World War II.

                                        His statement put an end to decades of equivocations by successive French Governments about France's wartime role.

                                        […]

                                        For the first 25 years after the war, French leaders held Nazi Germany solely responsible for the deportations. More recently, in an argument that Jewish groups saw as sophistry, they have blamed the collaborationist wartime government based in Vichy, absolving the French state.

                                        […]

                                        Still, by seizing this opportunity to confront France's wartime past so soon after taking office, Mr. Chirac has shown that he is eager not only to defuse an issue that has increasingly troubled France, but also to demonstrate that he does not share the often ambivalent views of his immediate predecessor, Francois Mitterrand.

                                        Mr. Mitterrand did not deny the role of the Vichy Government, headed by Marshal Henri Philippe Petain, in sending tens of thousands of Jews to their deaths, but he always argued that Vichy -- and not France or the French Republic -- was to blame. "I will not apologize in the name of France," he said only last September. "The Republic had nothing to do with this. I do not believe France is responsible."

                                        Last year, however, Mr. Mitterrand's own past became part of the debate when he admitted that, before joining the French resistance in 1943, he worked as a bureaucrat for 18 months for the Vichy regime. Further, he refused to apologize for his postwar friendship with a former Vichy police official, Rene Bousquet.

                                        Mr. Mitterrand said he had ended this relationship in the mid-1980's after Mr. Bousquet was charged with crimes against humanity for organizing mass deportations of Jews. But many French were dismayed that Mr. Mitterrand should have associated with a man known to be an important figure in the Vichy regime. Mr. Bousquet was murdered by a deranged gunman in 1991, before he went on trial.

                                        I’ve written on Mitterrand’s ambivalence towards Pétain and Vichy and Chirac’s role to rehabilitate in this post:

                                        https://www.onetouchfootball.com/sho...=1#post1304520

                                        By the same "Vichy was not France" token Mitterrand always refused to apologise in the name of France or the French Republic as, to him, neither the legal entity France nor the Republic (Mitterrand opportunely thought along legal, and not political, terms on this issue) had anything to do with the horrors perpetrated by Vichy.

                                        Comment


                                          This is very interesting too:

                                          https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-1446148.html

                                          Mitterrand lifts veil on his Vichy 'service'

                                          A French Youth: Francois Mitterrand 1934-1947 was written by Pierre Pean and it tells how President Mitterrand not only was once an apparently loyal servant of Vichy - where he was awarded 'La Francisque', the regime's main decoration - but had belonged to the far right as a young man. The Francisque was awarded to candidates who not only could demonstrate their loyalty to Marshal Philippe Petain, the Vichy leader, but also prove pre-war activity serving the 'principles of (Vichy-minded) national revolution'.

                                          Earlier this year, the press published details of how, long after the war, Mr Mitterrand was in touch with Rene Bousquet, the Vichy police chief who was assassinated in Paris in June last year.

                                          […]

                                          One of the two sponsors for Mr Mitterrand's 'Francisque' was Gabriel Jeantet, a member of Petain's staff and a former member of the pre-war 'La Cagoule' (The Hood), a secret right-wing organisation set up to topple the republic before the war. Pean documents the future Socialist President's participation in a number of far-right demonstrations in the 1930s.

                                          Comment


                                            Merci mille fois

                                            As soon as you asked the question, I knew I that my recollection had to be off at least a bit.

                                            Comment


                                              Fascinating. Did Mitterand start on the right before WW2 or drift that way as a socialist becoming a national socialist (like Déat for instance)?

                                              Comment


                                                Kev no doubt has a more encyclopedic command of all this, but Miterrand was born into a devoutly Catholic and conservative family in 1916, as one of eight children.

                                                He started on the right.

                                                Comment


                                                  Originally posted by Diable Rouge View Post
                                                  Very interesting - just one minor point, in that Micronesia now has full UN membership, so can be considered fully independent now, whereas Cook Islands still lack that status, though enjoying full internal autonomy.
                                                  Thanks for flagging it up, interesting. I’ve just looked very briefly at the UN lists, there are some discrepancies there IMO (not surprising as it’s political). I’ll try to come back to this at some point, I’m writing a few long posts atm.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Originally posted by Etienne View Post
                                                    Fascinating. Did Mitterand start on the right before WW2 or drift that way as a socialist becoming a national socialist (like Déat for instance)?
                                                    [Part 1/2]

                                                    I’ll try to write something a post about Mitterrand’s political cheminement – evolution – at some point this weekend or next week (I wrote this short post on this topic last year, don’t know if you’ve seen it). Mitterrand political’s journey is the opposite of Déat’s: he started on the far right, until 1942, then joined the Resistance (progressively, from summer 1942 – so he said –, maybe 1943, it’s not very clear when exactly) and then the left after WWII.

                                                    If you understand French, this is a terrific programme: Les Détectives de l'histoire : Mitterrand, pétainiste ou résistant ?



                                                    (unfortunately, this superb history series Les Détectives de l'histoire that re-examined history’s controversial or “cold” cases and which used to be shown on one of France Télévisions’ channels – the French Beeb – was scrapped about 6 yrs ago, it pays more I suppose to show game shows and fatuous talk shows, cheaper to make and higher ratings).

                                                    All these cheminements, whether it’s Mitterrand’s or Marcel Déat’s who you mention (or the even viler Jacques Doriot – his wiki: “Doriot was a French politician prior to and during World War II. He began as a communist but then turned fascist.”) are very interesting as they remind us that historical events are complex and all these seemingly counter-intuitive sudden political shifts challenge a great number of things: our cultural preconceptions, our conception of history, of politics, of human nature, our perception mechanisms. These strange cheminements force us to deconstruct our representations and they question our natural predisposition to categorise. This is in substance what I used to tell my Sixth-Formers when I taught A level French history, and this is especially true of WWII and the years leading to it as it was a particularly complex and nuanced period of history where things are not always what they seem and events are continuously being rewritten, to this day.

                                                    It’s a very interesting period of history which I think we can trace back, to a point, to l’Affaire Dreyfus. The Dreyfus Affair doesn’t of course mark the beginning of anti-Semitism in France, far from it, but it mainstreamed the issue. It also created substantial enduring divisions in French society, it was the Brexit of the time (more of which in Part 2). Those divisions were carried forward, amplified and re-awakened in French society a generation later from the late 1920s and particularly when the recession and the rise of nationalism ushered France into a grave period of political instability (from 1932 to 1934, a coup even threatened in February 1934 to topple the left-wing coalition in power). The far right and fascism, led by charismatic leaders, were growing. It’s in this volatile context then that Mitterrand, who had grown up in a in a staunchly catholic, conservative and right-wing environment as ursus says, forged a political culture and identity as a young man in the mid-1930s.

                                                    It is also a topic that also encompasses, inter alia, left-wing anti-Semitism and left-wing/formerly left-wing collaboration.

                                                    While many Vichyists and collaborators were from the right, even the hardline right we could say (far right, the Maurrassian right, the anti-Republican right etc.) there were also an awful lot who hail from the left, in particular from the nationalist left. You only have to look at the collaborationist parties to see that. Those parties had an collective membership of at least 100,000 at their peak during WWII (more in the years leading to it) and the main two collaborationist parties, ~60,000 members between them during WWII, were created by former communist MP Jacques Doriot (French Popular Party) and by a group of former socialists (the more “moderate” National Popular Rally) with ex SFIO (socialist) MP Marcel Déat as their leader. Pierre Laval, Pétain’s Head of gvt for most of WWII, also started on the left of course.

                                                    Etienne, you probably know the historian Henri Michel, he has written extensively on these subjects (the fact for instance that there were a number of ex socialists/communists/left-wing unionists in the various Vichy gvts – Belin, Chasseigne, Marquet, Lémery, Piétri etc.), plenty of opportunists no doubt in there but also plenty of anti-Semites too.

                                                    And so has French-born Israeli historian Simon Epstein, particularly in the weighty book Un paradoxe français (2008). The parts about the anti-Semitic resistants (many were from L’Action Française) are pretty beefy too. The book deals with these seemingly strange phenomena: philo-Semitic left-wingers who fought anti-Semitism in the 1920s-30s and who a few years later turned anti-Semitic themselves, became collaborators and part of the Vichy propaganda machine; and conversely, right-wingers who were anti-Semitic in the 1920s, were collaborators in the very early 1940s but then took a stance against anti-Semitic laws, entered the Resistance, saved Jews etc.

                                                    Also a French historian called Pascal Ory, he’s not as famous as the other two (esp. Henri Michel) but has written a lot about that particularly period and aspect of French history, 1930s-40s (left-wingers who switched side just before or during WWII). Ory is a socialist himself so he can’t really be suspected of proffering a version of history that would suit his agenda. Given the prominent role played by the French communist party in the resistance, this sort of thing remained taboo for a long time in France, right up to the Mitterrand/Chirac eras.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X