France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:56 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:

Merci, danke, tack så mycket, спасибо


Hi Statmec,

did you find some time to get an opinion about the document?

If Nick Terry has some spare time, i would gladly have his opinion on it as well.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:34 am

Balsamo, my wife has been reluctant to volunteer to help with reading it but she will eventually ;)
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:28 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Balsamo, my wife has been reluctant to volunteer to help with reading it but she will eventually ;)


:lol: :lol:

Ok do not bother your wife.
So here it is, first the French version, then my probably poor translation, so anyone can correct it.

Protestation solennelle du Consistoire
Le 25 août 1942

Le Consistoire Central des Israélites de France, conscient du devoir de solidarité religieuse qui lui incombe, exprime au Chef du Gouvernement, de l’indignation que lui inspire la décision prise par le Gouvernement Français de livrer au Gouvernement Allemand des milliers d’étrangers de diverses nationalités, mais tous de religion israélite, résidant en zone non occupée et qui s’étaient réfugiés en France avant la guerre, pour fuir les persécutions dont ils étaient victimes.

Le Consistoire Central proteste de toute son énergie tant contre cette atteinte portée au principe du droit d’asile que contre les conditions inhumaines dans lesquelles cette mesure a commencé d’être exécutée par les Autorités de la zone non occupée.

Le Consistoire Central ne peut avoir aucun doute sur le sort final qui attend les déportés, après qu’ils auront subi un affreux martyre. Le Chancelier du Reich n’a-t-il pas déclaré dans son message du 24 février 1942 : « ma prophétie, suivant laquelle au cours de cette guerre, ce ne sera pas l’humanité aryenne qui sera anéantie, mais les Juifs qui seront exterminés s’accomplira. Quoique nous apporte la bataille et qu’elle qu’en soit la durée, tel
sera son résultat final ».
Ce programme d’extermination a été méthodiquement appliquée en Allemagne et dans les pays occupés par elle, puisqu’il a été établi par des informations précises et concordantes que plusieurs centaines de milliers d’Israélites ont été massacrés en Europe Orientale ou y sont morts, après d’atroces souffrances, à la suite des mauvais traitements subis.

Enfin, le fait que les personnes livrées par le Gouvernement Français ont été rassemblées sans aucune discrimination, quant à leurs aptitudes puisque parmi elles figurent des malades, des vieillards des femmes enceintes des enfants, confirme que ce n’est pas en vue d’utiliser les déportés comme main-d’œuvre que le Gouvernement Allemand les réclame, mais dans l’intention bien arrêtée de les exterminer impitoyablement et méthodiquement.

Les citoyens français que nous sommes ne peuvent constater sans révolte que le Gouvernement Français, pour la première fois dans l’Histoire, viole délibérément le droit d’asile dont le respect par une tradition séculaire, a toujours été considéré dans notre pays comme un principe sacré.

Les Israélites sont d’autant plus fondés à souligner le caractère sacré du doit s’asile que c’est leur loi religieuse, qui dans les temps bibliques, l’avait expressément institué ; le christianisme a repris la même tradition et l’Eglise en a constamment imposé le respect aux Autorités laïques, tout au long de notre histoire.

Toutes les circonstances qui ont entouré cet abandon le rendent encore plus révoltant : Les malheureux déportés ont été traités de la façon la plus inhumaine, dès leur embarquement en zone non occupée ; ils ont été entassés dans des wagons à bestiaux, hommes, femmes, enfants, vieillards, malades, tous mêlés, sans vivres, sans que les précautions d’hygiène les plus élémentaires aient été respectées ; ces sinistres convois n’ont
pu être ravitaillés à leurs arrêts dans certaines gares de la zone non occupée, où un service d’ordre rigoureux et brutal a interdit l’accès des quais à des organisations charitables, et à des ministres du culte, qui tentaient de venir apporter à ces condamnés les secours ultimes de la
religion.

Les membres du Consistoire Central, presque tous anciens combattants, croient devoir signaler au Gouvernement que parmi les personnes aujourd’hui menacées de déportation, figurent des étrangers qui, au cours de la guerre, se sont engagés dans l’armée française, et ont
combattu sous les plis de ses drapeaux ; aujourd’hui, la France les livrerait sans défense, ce serait un fait si grave, que le Consistoire Central est assuré qu’il lui suffira de le signaler au Gouvernement pour que soit évitée une mesure propre à scandaliser tous les anciens combattants, à quelque confession qu’ils appartiennent.

Le Consistoire Central des Israélites de France, renouvelant les protestations antérieures aux termes desquelles il n’a cessé de demander que les Juifs étrangers fussent traités en tous points sur un même pied d’égalité que les autres étrangers, adjure le Gouvernement de bien vouloir réfléchir aux incalculables conséquences morales des mesures qu’il a ordonnées ; lui rappelle que les traditions les plus hautes de la rance, et qui se sont
constamment maintenues, interdisent la livraison à un Gouvernement étranger des malheureux voués à la mort, uniquement parce qu’ils sont coupables d’appartenir à une religion déterminée ;

Lui demande au moins, pour le cas où il ne serait pas possible d’obtenir la révocation de l’ensemble de ces mesures, de maintenir la totalité d’exceptions qui avaient été appliquées aux premiers convois, et notamment en exclure tous les anciens combattants et volontaires
étrangers avec leurs familles, les enfants de moins de 18 ans isolés, et en tout cas, les jeunes filles pour qui ces déportations risquent d’avoir les conséquences les plus révoltantes ;

Demande également de décider que les parents d’enfants âgés de moins de 3 ans ne soient pas déportés, ainsi que toutes les femmes enceintes ;
Insiste enfin pour qu’un traitement humain soit accordé à ceux qui resteraient condamnés à prendre le chemin de la déportation.


Link is above

Here is my poor translation:

The CCIF, aware of its duty of religious solidarity falling to it, expresses to the head of Government, the indignation that has inspired it the decision taken by the French Government to surrender to the German Government thousands of foreigners of various nationalities, but all of them of Jewish Religion, residing in the non-occupied zone and who found refuge in France before the war to escape the persecutions they were victim of.

The “Consistoire” protests with all its energy against this infringement to the principle of right of asylum as well as against the inhumane conditions in which this measure has begun to be applied by the authority of the free zone.

The CCIF cannot have any doubt about the final fate which awaits the deportees, after they will have been through a terrible martyrdom. Didn’t the Reich’s Chancellor declared in his message of the 24th of February 1942 (…) the “prophecy” (…) ? This program of extermination has been methodically applied in Germany as well as in the countries occupied by her, since it has been established by precise and consistent information that many hundreds of thousands of Jews has been massacred in Eastern Europe or died there, after horrible sufferings, from the bad treatments they endured.

Finally, the fact that the people surrendered by the French government have been gathered without any discrimination regarding their aptitude as, among them, one finds sick people, elderly, pregnant women, which confirms that it is not in order to use those deportees as labor force that the German Government requires them, but well with the intention to exterminate them methodically and without mercy.

The French Citizens who we are cannot observe without being revolted that the French Government, for the first time in history, violates deliberately the right of asylum whose respect has always been considered, through an immemorial tradition, as a sacred principle in our country.

The Jews are even more entitled to insist on the sacred value of the right of asylum that it is their own religious law, which in biblical times, they have established. Christianity took the tradition over, and the Church was always present to impose its respect to the secular authorities, all along our history.

All the circumstances that have surrounded this abandon make it even more revolting: Those poor deportees have been treated in the more inhumane way possible as soon as their boarding in the non-occupied zone; they were stuffed in cattle wagons, women, children, elderly, sick people, all mixed, without food nor any basic hygienic `precautions; those sinister convoys could not even be supplied by religious personnel during their stops at some Stations where rigorous security squads forbade the access to the platform to charitable organizations or religious ministers who wanted to bring some relieves (and ultimate religious support) to these doomed people.

The members of the « Consistoire », almost all of them war veterans, believe it is their duty to bring to the attention of the government that among the people today threatened with deportation, there are foreigners who, during the war, volunteered in the French Army, and who have fought under the French flags; today if France would surrender them defenseless, it would be such a dramatic fault that the “Consistoire” is convinced that the simple fact to point it out to the Government would be enough so that such a measure – which would revolt all war veterans whatever their religion – can be prevented.

THE CCIF, renewing its former protests which never ceased to ask that foreign Jews should be treated on the same level as all other foreigners, implores the Government to please consider the incalculable moral consequences of the measures It has ordered; recalls it that the highest traditions, which have always been maintained (observed), forbid the delivery to a foreign government of people destined to death only because they belong to a specific religion.

(The CCIF) asks (the Government) at least that in case it would not be possible to obtain the revocation of all those measures, it maintains the totality of the exceptions that were applied to the first convoys, that, among other, all war veterans, and foreign volunteers along with their families, isolated children of less than 18 years old, and in any case, the young girls for whom those deportations bare the risk of most revolting consequences, to be excluded from those deportations;

asks also to take the decision that the parents of children of less than 3 years old should not be deported, along with the pregnant women;

and finally insists that those condemned to be deported should be treated humanely.


I will edit it if i find mistakes...

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:14 am

I had put it through the Google translator, but it came out not so good. Thanks, Balsamo. Doing that work is very kind of you!
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:28 am

Thanks much, Balsamo. Seibel hit two critical points (the Führer's prophecy, the inclusion of those not capable of labor in an ostensible labor program). Both these points come up from time to time in other sources, not only French ones. The Consistoire's inferences are reasonable, but, from the text and taking context into account, it's doubtful the inferences are based on specific information, IMO. Thus, a well-held and sensible conclusion drawn from available facts. In retrospect, prescient - but at the time, what?, difficult, challenging, troubling - but not proof?
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:24 pm

Some notes from two books on southern France during WWII, which I've read recently, speaking to "what was known," mostly but not only among Jews in the region during 1942-1944. The conclusion, I think, is inescapable that, just as suspicions were current about the deportations involving very bad, if not lethal, outcomes, what people "knew" about the fate of deported Jews, or thought they knew, was not detailed, specific knowledge about the East. The discussed destinations and destinies were pessimistic but chimerical, to steal a phrase from another, related discussion. (I'm starting a third book on the southern zone and will add notes from that book if anything is pertinent.)

From Nice, the Alpes Maritime, and northern Italy

Repatriation for Polish refugees
Two Jews who would make their way to the Southern Zone after the July arrests in Paris were Jacques and Paulette Samson, refugees from Poland who’d come to Paris in 1937. The Samsons (Samsonowiczs) escaped the big July roundups but there cousin, Annie Biner, along with her brother and parents were seized and deported. Annie was arrested in the Jacques’ and Paulette’s apartment (Jacques and Paulette had not registered as Jews), and her father came to be with her, likely convinced that the arrests were for the purpose of repatriation to Poland and internment there. (p 55)

To a labor camp
During the 26 August 1942 Jewish roundup in the Southern Zone, police arrested two brothers of William Blye (Bleiweiss). The Blewiesses were emigres from Leipzig to France, having left Germany in 1937 and reached France in 1939. Chaim Bleiweiss, William’s father, made an attempt to bribe French officials to have his sons released. Instead, Chaim too was arrested. The three were not to be heard from again. William and his mother believed until war’s end that the two teen-aged boy and their father had been removed to a labor camp. (p 61)

To the Northern Zone for labor
During the August action, Menahem Marienberg, whose family had emigrated from Poland to Belgium during the ‘20s and then fled to France in 1940, heard rumors that Jews held in internment camps in unoccupied France or in labor brigades there, were to be sent to the occupied Northern Zone for labor. (p 67)

“We are on our way to Germany”
A Jewish refugee from Czechoslovakia, Wilhelm Bauer, was arrested in Florac in February 1943 as part of the Germans’ reprisal operation that month and sent to Gurs, from which camp he was deported “to the East” on convoy 50, which took its victims to Sobibór and Majdanek, in early March. Bauer managed to sneak a postcard from his deportation train to Marianne Roman, whom he’d recently married: “We are on our way to Germany. Nothing to do.” (p 77)

“Burned men” and “ovens” in Poland
Walter Marx, a Jewish refugee from Heilbronn, Germany, to France who made his way to the sanctuary village of Saint-Martin-Vésubie during 1942, in the expanded Italian Zone, recalled after the war how a stranger showed up at the office of the Jewish Committee in the village, talking excitedly in Yiddish about “verbennt Menchen” (burned men) and “Oifen” (ovens); the Jews in town thought that the man had lost his mind. A different report of similar import was also recounted by Alfred Feldman; according to Feldman, the Jews in Saint-Martin-Vésubie chose members of a committee to be in touch with the Italian carabinieri and learn what they could. The committee was told that two Jews who had escaped from a camp in Poland had reported in Nice that the Jews deported from France were being murdered by the Germans. Feldman, paying this report no mind, concluded that the lack of news from his arrested mother and sisters was due to wartime breakdowns in basic services. (pp 97-98)

“We had no idea what was going to happen”
In September 1943, after the Germans occupied Italy, they began rounding up refugee Jews from France who’d fled to Italy days earlier from the former Italian Zone in France. In Borgo San Dalmazzo, the Germans used posters to tell the foreigners in the town – that is, Jews who’d tried to outrun the Germans – to report by 6pm on 18 September or face death. Italians providing aid to Jews who didn’t turn themselves in were also told that they were subject to the death penalty. 100s of Jews turned themselves in, the posters communicating the seriousness of German intentions and because, in the words of Walter Marx (see above), “We had no idea what was going to happen.” Of these roundups, in Borgo San Dalmazzo, Valdieri, and other Italian towns, another Jewish refugee from France similarly said, “Nobody really knew what to expect.” (pp 126-127, 131)

“Train to Germany”
Later, in 1944, when Meneham Marienberg was 16, he was discovered in a raid on a farm near Cuneo, where he was hiding and working; the Fascist militia who arrested him placed him in a jail in a school in Cuneo. There, Marienberg was told by his Italian guards that, “If there is no train for Germany in a few days, we are going to shoot you.” (p 149)

“Taken to an unknown destination”
Eliyahu Löwenwirth, a Jewish refugee from Czechoslovakia who had fled from southern France to Italy when in September 1943, with the Badoglio-Allies armistice, was seized in spring 1944 and taken to the Fossoli camp, from which Primo Levi was deported to Monowitz-Auschwitz after the Germans assumed control of Fossoli. On 16 May 1944 two transports left from Fossoli, one taking 380 Jews to Auschwitz, a second with 166 mostly Libyan Jews but other protected Jews bound for Bergen-Belsen. Eliyahu was among those Jews on this Bergen-Belsen train, perhaps on account of having false Hungarian papers, perhaps for other reasons. The last letter which Eliyahu was able to send to his daughter, Miriam, hidden by nuns in a convent in Italy, told her, “We are being taken to an unknown destination. . . . Now you will understand why I hinted to you not to come visit me in the camp.” (p 173)

“We had no idea where the concentration camps were, or what was happening there”
Lya Haberman, whose family had fled Berlin for Paris in 1933 and whose mother and sister, as yet unbeknownst to Lya, had been arrested in the Nice raids in September 1943, hid in Florence during late 1943. Reflecting on the roundups of Jews in Florence carried out in November 1943 as well as earlier actions, she later recalled, “We had no idea where the concentration camps were, or what was happening there.” (pp 174-175)

Source: Susan Zuccotti, Holocaust Odysseys: The Jews of Saint-Martin-Vésubie and Their Flight through France and Italy (this book makes extensive use of interviews with survivors from 9 Jewish refugee families who spent time during the war in the village of Saint-Martin-Vésubie, in Alpes Maritime)


From the Vaucluse

“Internment, deportation”
Henri de Cameret, CGQJ delegate for the Vaucluse (spring 1941 – March 1943), testimony at his trial, 1945: “I was aware of these measures (interment, deportation) . . .” (p 39)

“Near Cherbourg”?
Letter to friend from Maria Weil, sent 18 January 1945, regarding her husband, Joseph Weil (arrested in Le Thor 8 May 1943, transferred to Drancy, deported to Auschwitz on convoy 55 on 23 June 1943): “You remember that I had the premonition that he was in Germany, even if the Gestapo of Paris maintained that he was near Cherbourg . . .” However, Weil continued, she was told by “a charitable organization for the search for deportees,” “that, on the same day my husband was taken from Drancy, a convoy left for Birkenau and that it must be assumed that he was interned there . . .” (p 54)

“I think that they were deported to Upper Silesia”
In 1945 Elise Yaffe testified about the arrests of three male family members, all deported on convoy 72, relating that she “never got any news from my son, my husband, or my father-in-law and I think that they were deported to Upper Silesia.” (p 62)

Eliminating Jewish gangrene and all the Jews
According to the protocol of Judge Beral’s interrogation of Jean Lebon, inspector of SEC in CGQJ, during his trial in 1945, Lebon in 1943 told René Meyer, during interrogation of Meyer to determine if he were Jewish, that “it is necessary to eliminated all the Jews.” Lebon denied the statement. Lebon also, Beral said, told Dr Jean Marx, during an inspection to determine if Marx had ceased practice under the Jewish statues, that “you were proud of helping this country to get rid of the Jewish gangrene . . .” (p 67)

“Transfer to a group of foreign workers”
A report of 24 April 1943 made by Lebon about René Altkuil, a bar manager, concluded that Altkuil “is a Jew according to the law of June 2, 1941” and was thereby subject to legal sanction; Lebon’s recommendation was to prosecute Altkuil under Vichy law and to “Require his transfer to a group of foreign workers,” the GTE. (p 79)

“The same fate as their co-religionists”
In 1943, with the exit of Italians and end to protection they afforded Jews in Provence from German actions, nervousness among the Jews in the area was noted in weekly prefecture reports. For example, the report for the week of 5-11 September 1943 noted that “The announcement of the arrival of a German commission in charge of arresting young Jews to force them into the STO is badly received in Israelite circles, who believe that the internment and deportation are continuing . . .” In November, a weekly report (14-20 November) would observe that local “Jews think that a general measure is about the be taken in France by the German authorities to secure the arrest of all the Israelites who are still free on French territory.” In the 2-8 April 1944 report we read that “The Jews appear very worried by the police operations executed by the German authorities and aimed at seeking a large number of Israelites. They wonder whether they too will not meet the same fate as their co-religionists.” Fate unspecified. (pp 311-312)

“Deported since 1943”
Esther Revah’s husband, Victor, was deported on convoy 74, and her father, on convoy 72. Her father had been seized in the Avignon roundups of 28-29 March 1944; her husband, on 10 May 1944. Revah in 1945, “I must say that my husband had been deported since 1943 [sic]. It has been a long time since I have had no news from them.” (pp 63-64)

Forced labor, repatriation
Lebon was involved in the deportation of Viktor Revah. In a reported dated 28 April 1943, Lebon wrote that “The Jew Revah is a dubious individual” and recommended his “enlistment in a GTE” (foreign workers unit – according to Poznanski p 20 “some” Jews actually did land in GTE’s) and “Repatriation to his country of origin.” (p 87)

To a concentration camp
In early June 1944, Maurice Stora, a Paris antique dealer, testified he was threatened with arrest when three men entered a villa he was renting in Villes sur Auzon. One of them, brandishing a gun, announced, “German police! . . . You are Jewish, and I am going to arrest you and carry out a search . . .” When Stora offered the men money for his freedom, they told him that if he gave them everything, he “would be better off in Villes sur Auzon than in a concentration camp. At this point the men brought in their boss, who also introduced himself as “German police.” Stora turned over 180,000 francs to the men and was released. (p 152-153)

“Assembled in Drancy”
Rolf Mühler, KdS Marseille, in his postwar interrogations and trial offered a defense quite like Eichmann’s – he hadn’t done much, and what he did was ordered by superiors, or forced on him by, er, Eichmann’s office and Brunner, and any excesses resulted from the zeal of his subordinates, whom he was unable to supervise closely, after all, tied up as he was with the Resistance. Mühler, like Eichmann, knew only his piece of the puzzle, a small piece limited to measures in Provence. At one point in his 1949 trial, Mühler told the court about the impact of “the Brunner Kommando,” directed by “Eckmann,” the court notes summarizing that Mühler had said that “There were a few men detached by Brunner to Marseille. He had a strict order to collaborate with them. The arrested Jews were assembled in Drancy.” End of the story? (p 337)

“The liquidation of Jews, freemasons and Gaullists”
René Caprio, a member of the Milice and the PPF, was assigned by the Avignon Milice to surveille local Jews. René Zarade, a store-owner, would later testify about the night of September 1942 when Caprio’s gang, which worked for Vaucluse Milice leader Yves Thesmar, had gone around the city vandalizing Jewish shops. When the men returned to Caprio’s house after their fun, according to Zarade, one of Caprio’s men, Kraskourine, said to him, “Caprio was assigned to the liquidation of Jews, freemasons and Gaullists.” (p 183)

“This race had to be eliminated”
Caprio was interrogated in late 1944 and stated of his PPF membership, “During my time in the party, I was a convinced anti-Semite like all the militants. At every meeting, we used to talk about the Jewish problem and like all the other comrades, I was sure that this race had to be eliminated.” (p 213)

“Deported to Germany “
In 1945 Kurt Leppein, a laborer from Sorgues, testified that a neighbor Auguste Gandon, a collaborationist, had tried during the course of the war to enlist him to work for the Germans. Gandon joined the Milice in 1943. At that time he recalled that Leppein had rejected earlier overtures. By 1944 Gandon told Leppein’s neighbor Gil, “I have you now under my control” and that “I have learned through M. Baudière that your wife is of Jewish descent and she will be soon in a camp and deported to Germany.” (p 184)

A Jewish snitch sent to Germany?
A post-liberation report on the Milice in Avignon noted that one of Thesmar’s agents, Henri Horn, a Jewish stallholder in the market, “specialized in the denunciation of Isrealies” for a fee. During 1944 Horn had been arrested for passing a warning to a person about to be arrested. The report surmised that “Horn was deported to Germany because he was a Jew” and was a dangerous person in the employ of the Germans “if he has not been killed.” (p 186)

“Still in Germany”
In May 1943, PPF activists supplied names of Jews to Wilhelm Müller, chief of Avignon Sipo-SD, resulting in arrests. A government commission report stated that one of the activists, Barbarant, “put five people on the list. Three of them are still in Germany.” Three of the men have been traced to Auschwitz deportations (convoys 58 and 59). Barbarant in his 1945 testimony clarified the incident: He’d given the list not to Müller, but, through another man, to Laurent Idlas, leader of the Doriotists in the Vaucluse. Barbarant said, “I do not know who used it. Practically speaking, the consequences were not that terrible since only Jews were arrested and freemasons and communists were not bothered by the Germans . . .” (pp 218-219)

“Deported to Germany”
Henri Dreyfus testified against in 1944 against Frédéric Gaston Mouillade, another Frenchman working for the Sipo-SD. In April 1943 Dreyfus, along with his wife and brother, had been arrested by two officers accompanied by Mouillade, who told Dreyfus’s employees that he was a German: “my wife was detained in Avignon for two weeks, my brother was deported to Germany, and I was interned for eight months in a concentration camp.” (pp 229-230)

"Sausage meat"
In 1945 David Kreikeman gave testimony about the arrest of his family. One of the French Sipo-SD men, Charles Palmieri, struck Kreikeman “several times on my shoulder with a cane he had taken from my wardrobe”; as Palmieri then led Kreikeman, his wife, and his son to the waiting car, Kreikeman asked Palmieri “was he was going to do with my son and he replied, ‘Sausage meat and we’ll make you eat it!’” (p 255)

Source: Isaac Levendel & Bernard Weisz, Hunting Down the Jews: Vichy, the Nazis, and Mafia Collaborators in Provence 1942-1944 (this book is heavily based on reviews of court files involving postwar proceedings in Avignon and environs, 1944-1950)
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:35 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Thanks much, Balsamo. Seibel hit two critical points (the Führer's prophecy, the inclusion of those not capable of labor in an ostensible labor program). Both these points come up from time to time in other sources, not only French ones. The Consistoire's inferences are reasonable, but, from the text and taking context into account, it's doubtful the inferences are based on specific information, IMO. Thus, a well-held and sensible conclusion drawn from available facts. In retrospect, prescient - but at the time, what?, difficult, challenging, troubling - but not proof?


Yes, but the more i search about this protestation, the more i am troubled.
If we do some basic historical critics (1.01) of this source, one wonders why Sieblel used it in the first place. As i understood, his only reference is Klarsfeld. I don't have Klarsfeld's book on hand, so i don't know what reference he gives to the source.
So as far as the external critic is concerned: well we have nothing! No date, no recipient, no address, no signature. No politeness introduction or conclusion.
While many fac simile of the correspondance of the Central Consistory are available online. Of this one, nada!

Internal critics? I will be more deep in the next post, but there is something that does not fit with pararaphe 3 and 4 - which are essential, and which would make this document one of the most important one in the history of the Final Solution in France.

This is why it deserve to be put into a serious scrutiny.

I will be back later

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:16 pm

Balsamo wrote:one wonders why Sieblel used it in the first place.

To clear this up, one of Seibel's central points is that ethical viewpoints and responses, under certain conditions (in this case, the loyalty of the Church to Pétain and Vichy and issues of political expediency among Vichy and the Germans), were able to have practical force. This argument ties in with Seibel's periodization, which is a little different to other accounts, in which he describes a September 1942 "turn" or "veto option" against Eichmann's deportation plan exercised by Vichy when the political costs of full-on collaboration with the deportation program became too costly to the regime. In this context the protests of Saliège and other churchmen figure large. But the Consistoire's protest letter to Pétain came from around the same time and carried some effective moral force, in Seibel's view, appealing as it did to French tradition and international responsibilities and coming from a leadership almost of whom were WWI veterans. The letter is thus for Seibel - and he also reviews US and other international responses to the summer deportations - one "indicator" among a number of indicators of awareness and pressure considered by the Vichy leadership at the time of the "turn"/"veto option." Not necessarily all that important to Seibel, as he places most weight by far on the Church responses, rather a supporting argument as it were. I'd be careful not to overplay the significance Seibel attributes (and as we shall see Zuccotti gives) to this protest letter.

Balsamo wrote:As i understood, his only reference is Klarsfeld. I don't have Klarsfeld's book on hand, so i don't know what reference he gives to the source.

Correct. It reads, in full, "42. Calendrier 867-68." Nothing more. I did bother refreshing my memory on this, however, and found another reference to this letter in Zuccotti's book on the Final Solution in France, pp 101-102, 150. Zuccotti, using more complex and lengthy wording, discounts the Consistoire's claims as purely inference and intellectual deduction, not fully believed as fact by the authors. This conclusion squares well with what's been said about the protest in this thread. OTOH she notes that the letter also was to be sent to leaders of the Jewish communities, the papal nuncio, the Red Cross, and a number of others (priests and posters as well as Vichy officials and journalists). Zuccotti's reference is CDJC, CCXIII-15 (4 pp) 1-2.

Balsamo wrote:So as far as the external critic is concerned: well we have nothing! No date, no recipient, no address, no signature. No politeness introduction or conclusion.

We do have the CDJC reference, though. I have neither Klarsfeld's text nor CDJC files.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:11 am

Statmec:

But the Consistoire's protest letter to Pétain came from around the same time and carried some effective moral force, in Seibel's view, appealing as it did to French tradition and international responsibilities and coming from a leadership almost of whom were WWI veterans. The letter is thus for Seibel - and he also reviews US and other international responses to the summer deportations - one "indicator" among a number of indicators of awareness and pressure considered by the Vichy leadership at the time of the "turn"/"veto option."


I will stick with the content of the letter, and i thank you for your inputs on it. Was the letter for Petain? I am not sure, or it would have had a mention like " Monsieur le Marechal", the same way, as it is said to be addressed to the Government (Laval) - the letter mostly refers to the Government - it should have mentioned " Monsieur le President).
As a matter of fact, the leading member of the Consistoire belonged to what could be called the "Jewish Elite", its former president was a Rothschild, and during the occupation the charge was held by Jacques Helbronner, one of his cousin, commander of the Legion d'honneur, member of the State Council (Conseil d'Etat). He had also been member of of the military staff of Clemenceau, and considered himself as a friend of Petein - they met 26 times in 1941 alone. This is important, but i will be back on that later.

That Seibel used it to determine a shifting point is one thing, the existence of the protest is not what is at stake here, it is quoted quite often of course, whithout being considered as determinent by some.

Again, to be clear, my focus is those paragraphs 3 and 4, and the explicit mention of "extermination" as the fate of the deportees.

I have checked many authors and articles, many mentioning the protest of 25th of august, but the mention of extermination - quite an important point - is never signaled or even commented.

Hilberg (last edition ) only say : (sorry translated from french)

" (...) On the 25th of August 1942, the Consistoire addressed a long unsigned "solemn protest" to Laval and made it public. In this document, indicating an increased worry of all the children and young women as well as of the french citizens, it was asking, in the case that the deportations were inevitable, that at least the former exemptions in place during the first five convoy to be reestablished."


And that is it. Not a word on the "extermination part", not one. And Hilberg is not alone in this case.

Giving another example, you wrote:

found another reference to this letter in Zuccotti's book on the Final Solution in France, pp 101-102, 150. Zuccotti, using more complex and lengthy wording, discounts the Consistoire's claims as purely inference and intellectual deduction, not fully believed as fact by the authors. This conclusion squares well with what's been said about the protest in this thread. OTOH she notes that the letter also was to be sent to leaders of the Jewish communities, the papal nuncio, the Red Cross, and a number of others (priests and posters as well as Vichy officials and journalists). Zuccotti's reference is CDCJ, CCXIII-15 (4 pp) 1-2.


Indeed, i have also read that the protest had been sent to various leaders including the pope, the red cross, the Marechal, etc. and still i have found no mentioned of its extermination aspects in any quote given! Not only that, i have not even found this "extermionation passage" quoted by anyone, except you (quoting Seibel/(Klarsfeld) and some articles from french papers related to the famous trial of Maurice Papon.

We do have the CDCJ reference, though. I have neither Klarsfeld's text nor CDCJ files.


Well maybe, but as i said, there is no original of this document available online, not even mentions of its part dedicated to the extermination but in those we posted, that is very few.
Without the original documents, we are left with this pdf, which i copy / paste, and which offer nothing to allow a basic critical analysis. Thus what we have, is a "quote, but not a "source". Hence, no external criticism possible.
Now, zucotti seems to suggest that the incriminated passage (paragraphs 3 and 4) could only have been the result of "inferences and intellectual deductions" - am i right to think that he talks about those two paragraphs?

The first problem is that the Consistoire pretend to have those information based on " by precise and consistent information" ( informations precises et concordantes), but unfortunately the members of the Consistoire - whom are mostly all high profile lawyers or former politicians - don't feel necessary to describe those information nor how they got them, and this while addressing a "Solemn protest" to the head of Government ?
Does that seems logic to you?

Now were are well in the so called "internal criticism" of the source where you look for the coherence of the text.

Let's take a bit of distance here: this protest is not only a pure protest, it also contains a demand, that is that the former exemption to be reestablished, a demand they believe that the head of Government ( Laval) can grant.
So the question is: " would any sane person first accuse a person of being an accomplice of a crime outside any proportion, later rightly called crime against humanity before asking him a solemn demand?
It is like writing " Ok, there is no doubt that you are a pedophile, but do you have a job for me?"
This is what first stroke me, i confess.

But then, look at the difference of style and tone between the paragraph? And again the coherence of the whole?
Then another interpretation strikes:
"Do those guy are seriously saying : " Well we know that all those deportees will be exterminated, but young girls bares the risk of most revolting consequences before...being killed?"

One final remark, all people with a little experience in those matters, know that in a letter, protest, demand, argumentation whatever, you keep the most important points for the end. You just don't insert the "extermination part " in your introduction before asking for some concrete measures, especially if your letter is two pages long, you'd make sure that this terrible accusation is at least on your last page.

This is the point when i said that i was troubled, and needed additional research.
The first problem here is that it will take more than one post to summarize everything.

Let's start with the personality of Jacques Helbronner, president of the Consistoire. Being part of the highest French Jewish Elite, as i already said, he thought being a friend of Philippe Petain, and trusted him in believing that most of the measures falling upon french Jewry was forced by the Nazis. All the protests addressed to the French government includes hallucinating formulas of politeness and respect. Fierce opponent to Laval - secured by his "friendship" with the Marechal" - he is famous (quoted by Hilberg) for having said:

"If Laval wants to see me, he can convoke me, but please let him know that from the 8th of August and until September, i will be on vacations, and that nothing would make me come back until then" (again my poor translation)


And indeed, he went and was on vacation, and indeed he did not go back. So the president was not there when the protest was made.
Of course, this arouse a question: if his organization held for certain that the deportation were heading to pure extermination, would it be normal to take vacation in the midst of daily deportation started in June?
So even without its president, the council of the consistoire still decided to address this protest to Laval. According to their own testimony, they went to Vichy on the 26th, but Laval was not there, neither was its chef of cabinet, so they gave the "Solemn protest" to the assistant of the chef of Cabinet without recording his name!
(Conference available in french, this is exactly how things are presented)

So was this protest really copìed 50 times and sent all over the place? Well this is not what Asher Cohen says in his book, quite the contrary, he states that never the Consistory tried to bring its protest to the attention of the public, again what the {!#%@}?
Worse, i will quote him ( Persecuition et sauvetage):
"Sur quelles information le Consistoire se fondait-il? Dans ce cas precis, rien n'est clair, ni la source des informations du Consistoire, ni le fait que par la suite, ses dirigeants se conduisent comme si cette extermination n'existait nullement ou qu'il n'en savait rien"!


my translation:
" On what information did the Consistory based its plea? In this case, nothing is clear, nor the source of the Consistory's information, nor the fact that, thereafter, its leaders behave just like there had never been an extermination or like they did not know anything about it."


And as a matter of facts, you are all welcome to go and hunt for any other later protest by the Consistoire which makes allusion to extermination.

to be continued ( it is getting late and i am getting confused )

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:48 am

Balsamo wrote:Was the letter for Petain? I am not sure, or it would have had a mention like " Monsieur le Marechal", the same way, as it is said to be addressed to the Government (Laval) - the letter mostly refers to the Government - it should have mentioned " Monsieur le President).

Seibel says that it was, and so does Zuccotti. Marrus and others say that the letter went to Laval. I can't explain the difference as I haven't been in the archive. Apparently there were other versions of the letter - I don't know for sure - and I certainly don't know what the original at CDJC, CCXIII-15 (4 pp) 1-2 says. Anyway, my inability to explain why some writers say the letter went to Pétain has nothing to say about the document itself - it is rather a point about what various scholars have said about the protest. The protest may have gone to both Laval and Pétain in slightly different forms, or Seibel and Zuccotti may have made an error.

Balsamo wrote:As a matter of fact, the leading member of the Consistoire belonged to what could be called the "Jewish Elite", its former president was a Rothschild, and during the occupation the charge was held by Jacques Helbronner, one of his cousin, commander of the Legion d'honneur, member of the State Council (Conseil d'Etat). He had also been member of of the military staff of Clemenceau, and considered himself as a friend of Petein - they met 26 times in 1941 alone. This is important, but i will be back on that later.

Seibel's account assumes this background.

Balsamo wrote:That Seibel used it to determine a shifting point is one thing,

But that is not what I wrote. He used it as one "indicator" of the pressures facing the the regime, and not a critical indicator either.

Balsamo wrote:I have checked many authors and articles, many mentioning the protest of 25th of august, but the mention of extermination - quite an important point - is never signaled or even commented.

You need to look at Zuccotti's book p 100. She does precisely what you say is never signaled or commented on; she is in fact as explicit as Seibel. In 1993.

Balsamo wrote:Hilberg (last edition ) only say : (sorry translated from french) . . . Indeed, i have also read that the protest had been sent to various leaders including the pope, the red cross, the Marechal, etc. and still i have found no mentioned of its extermination aspects in any quote given! Not only that, i have not even found this "extermionation passage" quoted by anyone, except you (quoting Seibel/(Klarsfeld) and some articles from french papers related to the famous trial of Maurice Papon.

Grrrr, come on. I will quote for you what Zuccotti wrote, "In France itself on August 25, the Consistoire central des Israelites de France delivered a formal protest to Pétain, among others, that seemed remarkably well reasoned. Since the Nazis have accepted Jews of all ages and work capacities from the unoccupied zone, the protest read, it is clear that ‘it is not for purposes of labor that the German government is claiming them, but with the intention of exterminating them methodically and without pity.’” pp 100-101.

Btw Marrus & Paxton in Vichy France and the Jews quote the exact same part of the letter (extermination) (see p 354, citing Billig 1977) and, as I will do (see below), link the wording to the reports emerging in summer 1942 about the general fate of the Jews in the East. Laqueur quotes the same passage mentioning "extermination impitoyablement et méthodiquement" in The Terrible Secret (p 149), interpreting the passage differently to Zuccotti, as one would expect.

Hilberg, on the other hand, didn't paraphrase the full text. So what? Historians differ on how they treat documents. There's no there here.

Now, whatever your point is, there's no need to make these sorts of unfounded claims. A number of standard works - I am not going to look further - do what you say isn't done, use this "extermionation passage," "by anyone, except [me]."

Balsamo wrote:
We do have the CDCJ reference, though. I have neither Klarsfeld's text nor CDCJ files.

Well maybe,

No, not "maybe," we actually do have this reference to the CDJC documents. Zuccotti gave it.

Balsamo wrote:as i said, there is no original of this document available online

I can't even.

So what? The document is in an archive, not online. 1000s of 1000s of documents are in exactly the same situation. Your not having access to this document, seen and used by a number of scholars, is really not a cause for speculation or concern.

Balsamo wrote:Without the original documents, we are left with this pdf, which i copy / paste, and which offer nothing to allow a basic critical analysis. Thus what we have, is a "quote, but not a "source". Hence, no external criticism possible.

Well, in saying that we don't have a source but only quotations, you have just accused Zuccotti of giving a bad reference. On what basis?

Balsamo wrote:Now, zucotti seems to suggest that the incriminated passage (paragraphs 3 and 4) could only have been the result of "inferences and intellectual deductions" - am i right to think that he talks about those two paragraphs?

Zuccotti is named Susan, so "she" would be preferable. Her book is on Google Books, so you can find what she wrote there. I am not going to type it all out.

Balsamo wrote:The first problem is that the Consistoire pretend to have those information based on " by precise and consistent information" ( informations precises et concordantes), but unfortunately the members of the Consistoire - whom are mostly all high profile lawyers or former politicians - don't feel necessary to describe those information nor how they got them, and this while addressing a "Solemn protest" to the head of Government ?
Does that seems logic to you?

Yes, and so does Zuccotti's explanation.

The letter cites the well-known Führer prophecy. Further, by August 1942 the BBC had already broadcast information on the massacres of Jews in Poland. The letter does not mention gas chambers nor precise information about the fate of French Jews. It assumes the fate of French Jews based on other, known information. (Poznanski in her book, pp 298-299, explicitly ties "the bishops' pastoral letters" to reports about French Jews on BBC by early August, thus putting the deportations of Jews from France in the context of what was being learned of events in Poland, e.g., the BBC on 8 August 1942, "So France is becoming a land of pogroms, a land of shame?") In fact, what you question as illogical sounds quite logical in context and is why I said the letter was well reasoned.

Balsamo wrote:Now were are well in the so called "internal criticism" of the source where you look for the coherence of the text.

There is no problem with text coherence that I know of or that you're shown.

I truly do not know what you're driving at. The point is most obscure until now.

Balsamo wrote:Let's take a bit of distance here: this protest is not only a pure protest, it also contains a demand, that is that the former exemption to be reestablished, a demand they believe that the head of Government ( Laval) can grant.
So the question is: " would any sane person first accuse a person of being an accomplice of a crime outside any proportion, later rightly called crime against humanity before asking him a solemn demand?

This sort of thing is done so routinely that I can only express astonishment at your befuddlement.

Balsamo wrote:It is like writing " Ok, there is no doubt that you are a pedophile, but do you have a job for me?"
This is what first stroke me, i confess.

No, it is like writing, "That which you are doing is abetting a pedophile. I can explain how. Given this, and our laws and traditions of decency, I beg you to stop abetting this criminal."

Balsamo wrote:One final remark, all people with a little experience in those matters, know that in a letter, protest, demand, argumentation whatever, you keep the most important points for the end. You just don't insert the "extermination part " in your introduction before asking for some concrete measures, especially if your letter is two pages long, you'd make sure that this terrible accusation is at least on your last page.

Not at all, in fact, one common approach is to put that with which you want to frame your appeal, and use to grab the readers' attention, first so that readers will 1) get it without having to read the whole, 2) keep reading and 3) read with the mind-set you want them to have. Using this approach, you would distinctly not do what you advise. (I used to tell my staff when presenting to or writing for busy superiors to make their main point in the first two sentences or risk losing the audience.) But if someone did it the reverse to my approach, so what? Either way raises no doubt about the document.

Balsamo wrote:This is the point when i said that i was troubled, and needed additional research.
The first problem here is that it will take more than one post to summarize everything.

This feels like a wild goose chase, or what in the law is called a fishing expedition, undertaken not because of problems with sources but because you don't like this letter. Nothing you've written strikes me as consequential. Sorry. I can't keep at this.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Sat Aug 27, 2016 12:09 am

Statmec:

You need to look at Zuccotti's book p 100. She does precisely what you say is never signaled or commented on; she is in fact as explicit as Seibel. In 1993.


Thanks, i have checked.
Just saw that you quoted it here:

"In France itself on August 25, the Consistoire central des Israelites de France delivered a formal protest to Pétain, among others, that seemed remarkably well reasoned. Since the Nazis have accepted Jews of all ages and work capacities from the unoccupied zone, the protest read, it is clear that ‘it is not for purposes of labor that the German government is claiming them, but with the intention of exterminating them methodically and with(out) pity.’”


SHE speaks of a letter to Petain, although it has not the form of a letter and is not addressed to anyone in particular. Petain or "le Marechal" is not even mention in the "letter"...

The reasoning she described as remarkable would indeed have been well thought had it been made in June or even early July, or if it would have applied to Belgium. In Belgium, the pretext of being sent to work in the East did not last long for this very reason, and suspicions - does not mean suspicions of mass extermination though - arose as soon as mid July. Too late, by then already 16.000 Jews had been arrested, and indeed it will need the use of the local police in order to arrest the others.

In France, the Nazis played more carefully and indeed only asked for able adults to be deported at first. By the end of August, after all the discussion about the fate of the children left behind, the pretext had become massive relocation to the East - to a so called Jewish State somewhere in Poland - by August 1942, this was the official "lie" promoted by the Germans, and "believed" and repeated by Vichy. So the remarkable reasoning is somehow anachronistic.

She also writes that it was addressed to others - and here too opinions seem to diverge. Note again that you cannot conclude that on the sole base of the document.
If the "LETTER" has been copied 50 times and sent to everyone, how is it there is not even ONE copy available (I know internet is not eveything, but it is nevertheless full of copies of protests by the consistoire, but this crucial one. How is it that it has such a small impact, as it would have been the first western European document mentioning "methodological" extermination?

The problem of course being that there does not seem to exist a consensus on the fate of this document.
As I said, Asher Cohen argues that the Consistoire refused to make this protest public, while even raising serious question about it - just like i do by the way - by stating this and i post it again:

" On what information did the Consistory based its plea? In this case, nothing is clear, nor the source of the Consistory's information, nor the fact that, thereafter, its leaders behave just like there had never been an extermination or like they did not know anything about it."


Statmec:

Now, whatever your point is, there's no need to make these sorts of unfounded claims. A number of standard works - I am not going to look further - do what you say isn't done, use this "extermionation passage," "by anyone, except [me].
"

I admit that i expressed myself wrong.
I was referring to a previous post of you:
Probably another widely known document but new to me (at least as far as I recall) is a written protest, germane to the point above concerning "what was known" in 1942, made by the Consistoire to Pétain himself on 25 August 1942, in advance of the 26-27 August deportations from the Free Zone. Among the issues raised by the Consistoire was the fate of the Jews sent to the east. The protest referenced two points on this issue: 1) the Führer's prophecy which foresaw the annihilation of the Jews in the world war and 2) the deportation of people regardless of age or physical condition which eviscerated the "labor" justification and confirmed the exterminatory intent.


While the protest in itself was not new to me - well it is mentioned in Hilberg and all, but was what new to me is the two points you highlighted that is the prophecy and the methodical extermination claim.
These are now to be found in the latest works, and maybe in other like Laqueur (which i have not read). there maybe some more, of course, i don't know...

and yes it surprises me, because the two authors you gave as example, Seibel and Zuccotti - and i don't speak about how their fit the document in their thesis here, that is not the issue, basically repeat the same thing - which strangely cannot be deducted from the document - that is
1./ the "statement" becomes a "letter" and that it was addressed to Petain himself which is also not the case.
2./ Zuccotti adds that it was also "sent" to others which is also not obvious and cannot neither be deducted by the document in question.

This is why i posted and translated it in the first place. So everyone could see that not only was it a formal letter, that there is no mention of Petain, and there are not even a signature, nothing.

So sorry if i seem pretentious, but normally source are to be submitted to some critical analysis.
I am not accusing anyone here, Seibel seems to refers to Klarsfeld, Zuccotti gives a archive code, very well... Did she really had the document in hand (the original) or did she relied on the secondary source, while giving the reference of the archive, i don't know, of course, still the question is how can those two historians conclude that it was a letter addressed to Petain himself ( only him or other, whatever) when nothing in this document says anything like this - if the pdf from the memorial de la shoah is a copy of the original, of course.

I don't see it as a wild goose chase, sorry.
This is a vital document in the "eternal passionate debate" that France as a State and Country is still struggling with. It refers to what was known or not at a very specific time.

It is not just a detail that this letter was not addressed to Petain, but was meant to Laval. It is not a detail that this letter does not have any attribute that would make it a formal letter as a letter is by definition sent to SOMEONE by another person (which then allow a hypothetic epistolary exchange)...So who read this in August 1942?
Based on the copy of the document i posted, there is no way to tell!

Here is the version of the authors during the general assembly of the Consistory in 1946:

A chaque nouveau décret, à chaque nouvelle injustice, le Consistoire. Central répond par une protestation écrite, qui est portée à Vichy, et remise en double exemplaire au Cabinet de celui qu'on appelait le Chef de l'État, et au Cabinet du Président du Conseil.
Et. Messieurs, il faut que vous sachiez bien, — car il y a eu souvent des malentendus sur ce point, et la vérité complète doit être exactement connue de tous, — il faut que vous sachiez bien que le Consistoire Central, dans toutes ses protestations, s'est occupé également de tous les Juifs, quels qu'ils soient. Lorsque les Juifs étrangers sont systématiquement arrêtés en zone Sud, au mois d'août 1942, ne se contentant pas d'une protestation écrite, une délégation est constituée : composée de Monsieur le Grand Rabbin de France, M. Isaïe Schwartz, du Président Adolphe Caen, du Professeur Oualid et de moi-même, et accompagnée du Conseiller juridique du Consistoire Central, Maitre Robert Kiefé, elle se rend à Vichy, le 25 août 1942, ne peut être reçue par Laval, retenu ce jour-là par la réunion des maires, a un entretien assez long avec le chef de cabinet de Laval, et remet entre ses mains une protestation solennelle.


At each new decree, each new injustice, the Central Consistory responds by a written protest which is sent to Vichy and given in duplicate to the Cabinet of who was then called the "Head of the State" (Petain, my note) and to the Cabinet of the president of the Council (Laval).
And, Gentlemen, you need to know well - since there had been many misunderstanding on that point, and that the whole truth has to be known by all with exactitude - you need to know that the Central Consistory, in all its protests, was preoccupied and took care of ALL the Jews, whatever origins they were. When the foreign Jews are systematically arrested in the Southern Zone during the month of 1942, not contenting with a simple written protest, a delegation is put together composed by Mister the Great Rabbi of France, m. Schwartz, of the president Adolph Caen, Professor Oualid and myself (Leon Meiss, my note), and accompagnied by the Juridic Councillor of the Central Consitory, Mr Robert Kiefe, it goes to Vichy on the 25th of August 1942, cannot be received by Laval - who was held by a reunion of mayors, has a quite long interview (discussion) with the chief of Cabinet of Laval, and present first hand a "solemn protest".


http://judaisme.sdv.fr/perso/doctor/and-bernh/consist.htm

Does that help?
What does this NOT BEING CONTENT FOR means? Did they wrote the usual letters or did they decide to conduct a delegation to Laval? This is not clear at all, as the document we have on hand here is certainly not the kind of letter that the Consistory would have sent to the Marechal.
That leaves us with the "Solemn protest" - but then it was not sent but brought to Laval who was not there, so the delegation decided to leave with the chief of Cabinet. In Meiss' speech, he is not named, although he is probably not a unknown character as his name was Jean Jardin ( he stayed at Laval service until the end of 1943).
Not only did Jean Jardin received the "Solemn protest" containing the denouciation of methodological killing, but they also had a long discussion during which we are allowed to think that the extermination of the deported Jews was addressed.

A quick look at the wiki pages on Jean Jardin, and there is this curious sentence, supported by three sources, stating that
En revanche, il est difficile d'établir dans quelle mesure il était conscient des conséquences de ces rafles et des déportations7,8,6.


or
"On the other hand, it is difficult to estabish how conscious he was of the consequences of those "round ups" and "deportation."


Among the sources,
there is Serge KLARSFELD who declared
"
There is no documents about Jean Jardin and the Jewish Question. It is wrong to assimilate Jardin and Laval. If there is someone who had influence on Laval about the "raffle du Val d'hiv", it is Rene Bousquet.

He adds, later in the same interview:
"
En 1942, il ne savait pas comment les Allemands tuaient les juifs, mais il savait que 3 000 juifs étaient déjà morts dans les camps français, en zone libre. En fait, la grande question est pourquoi n’a-t-il pas démissionné après la rafle du Vél’ d’Hiv’?


or
In 1942, he (Jean Jardin) did not know how the German killed the Jews, but he knew that 3000 had already died in the French camps, in the Free zone. In fact, the big question is why he did not offer his resignation"


Very lenient from Klarsfeld. Jean Jardin would later become a target for the ultra ( Darnand) and Laval will make him ambassador to Switzerland by the end of 1943. After liberation, he will stay there until 1947, and avoid the "epuration", very influencial among the business milieu as well as the political one, he will come back and shine again, as if never had ever happened.
his even more famous than ever because his grandson, Alexandre Jardin, a very famous novelist in France, dedicated a book on his grand father called the "Nain Jaune", or the "Yellow Dwarf" in which he basically destroys the myth...hence the fuss. But let's not disgress.
Nevertheless, he is the one who is supposed to have received the "solemn protest" containing the extermination stuff on the 25th of August, while most french historians deny his knowledge about the fate of the deportees.
Coherence?

end of part II

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Aug 27, 2016 1:49 am

Balsamo wrote:SHE

She thanks you. :)

Balsamo wrote:speaks of a letter to Petain, although it has not the form of a letter and is not addressed to anyone in particular. Petain or "le Marechal" is not even mention in the "letter"...

Let's cut to the chase: The discussion has felt indeed like a wild goose chase. I really don't want to work through and reply to a lot of semantic quibbling, speculation and innuendo, hyperbolic and not altogether accurate statements (no authors have referenced the extermination passage in the protest!), and circuitous pathways. Up until you quote from the Consistoire's 1946 statement, that's how it all has read to me. And that's why the discussion up to that point pretty much lost me. In fact, I nearly didn't read your last post because it began with more of the same (no previous Western references to extermination!). Far easier, in my mind, for you just to add what you want to add and make the point you want to make.

But I'm glad I did read on, because of the final bit.

The 1946 statement adds the important detail that the Consistoire saw the situation as so urgent that they broke with their usual approach and met with the Cabinet chief (or we could be reading some postwar spin?); the statement even suggests the possibility that the letter reached neither Laval and Pétain. But we don't know if it did or not, and we still don't know what Seibel or Zuccotti saw, all we have on the document itself is their different references and an apparently transcribed version of the letter for the Memorial de la Shoah website.

OTOH the Consistoire's 1946 statement of explanation and the additional information are of course interesting (but again why so many tangents to learn this . . . ?)

Balsamo wrote:Here is the version of the authors during the general assembly of the Consistory in 1946:

A chaque nouveau décret, à chaque nouvelle injustice, le Consistoire. Central répond par une protestation écrite, qui est portée à Vichy, et remise en double exemplaire au Cabinet de celui qu'on appelait le Chef de l'État, et au Cabinet du Président du Conseil.
Et. Messieurs, il faut que vous sachiez bien, — car il y a eu souvent des malentendus sur ce point, et la vérité complète doit être exactement connue de tous, — il faut que vous sachiez bien que le Consistoire Central, dans toutes ses protestations, s'est occupé également de tous les Juifs, quels qu'ils soient. Lorsque les Juifs étrangers sont systématiquement arrêtés en zone Sud, au mois d'août 1942, ne se contentant pas d'une protestation écrite, une délégation est constituée : composée de Monsieur le Grand Rabbin de France, M. Isaïe Schwartz, du Président Adolphe Caen, du Professeur Oualid et de moi-même, et accompagnée du Conseiller juridique du Consistoire Central, Maitre Robert Kiefé, elle se rend à Vichy, le 25 août 1942, ne peut être reçue par Laval, retenu ce jour-là par la réunion des maires, a un entretien assez long avec le chef de cabinet de Laval, et remet entre ses mains une protestation solennelle.


At each new decree, each new injustice, the Central Consistory responds by a written protest which is sent to Vichy and given in duplicate to the Cabinet of who was then called the "Head of the State" (Petain, my note) and to the Cabinet of the president of the Council (Laval).
And, Gentlemen, you need to know well - since there had been many misunderstanding on that point, and that the whole truth has to be known by all with exactitude - you need to know that the Central Consistory, in all its protests, was preoccupied and took care of ALL the Jews, whatever origins they were. When the foreign Jews are systematically arrested in the Southern Zone during the month of 1942, not contenting with a simple written protest, a delegation is put together composed by Mister the Great Rabbi of France, m. Schwartz, of the president Adolph Caen, Professor Oualid and myself (Leon Meiss, my note), and accompagnied by the Juridic Councillor of the Central Consitory, Mr Robert Kiefe, it goes to Vichy on the 25th of August 1942, cannot be received by Laval - who was held by a reunion of mayors, has a quite long interview (discussion) with the chief of Cabinet of Laval, and present first hand a "solemn protest".


http://judaisme.sdv.fr/perso/doctor/and-bernh/consist.htm

Does that help?

What does this NOT BEING CONTENT FOR means? Did they wrote the usual letters or did they decide to conduct a delegation to Laval? This is not clear at all, as the document we have on hand here is certainly not the kind of letter that the Consistory would have sent to the Marechal.
That leaves us with the "Solemn protest" - but then it was not sent but brought to Laval who was not there, so the delegation decided to leave with the chief of Cabinet. In Meiss' speech, he is not named, although he is probably not a unknown character as his name was Jean Jardin ( he stayed at Laval service until the end of 1943).
Not only did Jean Jardin received the "Solemn protest" containing the denouciation of methodological killing, but they also had a long discussion during which we are allowed to think that the extermination of the deported Jews was addressed.

A quick look at the wiki pages on Jean Jardin, and there is this curious sentence, supported by three sources, stating that
En revanche, il est difficile d'établir dans quelle mesure il était conscient des conséquences de ces rafles et des déportations7,8,6.


or
"On the other hand, it is difficult to estabish how conscious he was of the consequences of those "round ups" and "deportation."


Among the sources,
there is Serge KLARSFELD who declared
"
There is no documents about Jean Jardin and the Jewish Question. It is wrong to assimilate Jardin and Laval. If there is someone who had influence on Laval about the "raffle du Val d'hiv", it is Rene Bousquet.

He adds, later in the same interview:
"
En 1942, il ne savait pas comment les Allemands tuaient les juifs, mais il savait que 3 000 juifs étaient déjà morts dans les camps français, en zone libre. En fait, la grande question est pourquoi n’a-t-il pas démissionné après la rafle du Vél’ d’Hiv’?


or
In 1942, he (Jean Jardin) did not know how the German killed the Jews, but he knew that 3000 had already died in the French camps, in the Free zone. In fact, the big question is why he did not offer his resignation"


Very lenient from Klarsfeld. Jean Jardin would later become a target for the ultra ( Darnand) and Laval will make him ambassador to Switzerland by the end of 1943. After liberation, he will stay there until 1947, and avoid the "epuration", very influencial among the business milieu as well as the political one, he will come back and shine again, as if never had ever happened.
his even more famous than ever because his grandson, Alexandre Jardin, a very famous novelist in France, dedicated a book on his grand father called the "Nain Jaune", or the "Yellow Dwarf" in which he basically destroys the myth...hence the fuss. But let's not disgress.
Nevertheless, he is the one who is supposed to have received the "solemn protest" containing the extermination stuff on the 25th of August, while most french historians deny his knowledge about the fate of the deportees.
Coherence?

But there still exist the limitations previously discussed: lack of specific information in the letter as to destinations, methods, etc. A re-statement of what was already in the public sphere - the Führer's prophecy and the mass extermination underway in Poland. But, to bring matters back to France, strong reasoning, an almost inescapable conclusion that the cover stories about the deportations were false. Which is Seibel's point: whether a copy of the letter reached Laval, or Pétain, or the others, after the visit - or Jardin consulted on what was said/written with either man - Vichy was reaching the point of blatant complicity in what the Germans were doing in the East. Thus, Seibel's "turn" in September. (I can't tell if you agree with his point or not through all this.) Although, again, Seibel's assessment is that the Church protests were the biggest factor.

Nor is Zuccotti's demurral ruled out, either. She seems to find the Consistoire’s 1946 statement to be a bit of ex post facto self-justification. In her book on Père Marie-Benoit (p 124), Zuccotti has Helbronner receiving a letter on the crematoria and gas chambers and not believing it, thus sending inquiries to Switzerland, despite the postwar statement of Grand Rabbi Kaplan (in the delegation to Vichy mentioned in your post) saying that he had been aware of all this since August 1942. This is in keeping with her stress that the Consistoire "knew" less than it appeared.

Saul Friedlander, in Years of Extermination, p 417, discusses two versions of the protest letter:
In August the Consistoire prepared two drafts of a protest letter. The milder version, not alluding to “extermination” (mentioned in the other draft) or to the participation of the French police or to that of the Germans, was delivered in Vichy on August 25, not to Laval to whom it was addressed and who once again refused to meet with the delegate of French Jewry, but to some low-ranking official.77 That was all.

[77. Simon Schwarzfuchs, Aux prises avec Vichy: Histoire politique des Juifs de France, 1940–1944 (Paris, 1998), pp. 253–56. For the text of a draft of July 28, see Klarsfeld, Vichy- Auschwitz, vol. 1, p. 295.] Sadly the pages of Schwarzfuchs cited by Friedlander are not available in Google Book preview, so I can't check to see if he disagrees that the contact was Jardin, with whom, given Laval's recalcitrance, the Consistoire had much traffic (one gets the idea none of these guys wanted to hear it, but more and more they were forced to). Poznanski does summarize the letter, btw, including the extermination passage, p 290; she has it going to Laval (her archival reference is different to the others: AIU:CC1a; this is the Morris Moch Collection at AIU in Paris).

I found a facsimile of a page of the protest letter: http://library.mcmaster.ca/archives/vir ... od2-4.html - it is online after all, nothing suspicious here. No cover note or anything with this facsimile. It is missing even the “Protestation solennelle du Consistoire Le 25 août 1942” in the transcribed version to which you linked. Paragraphs 3-4 of the transcribed version do not appear to be separate paragraphs in the facsimile. This copy is from the Diamond Collection at McMaster University. ([4] 0302 Texte du Consistoire Central des Israélites de France à Pétain (1942 or after). The translation on the page I've linked to is taken from: Lazare, Rescue as Resistance, 159) [p 159 not available in Google Book preview]
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Sat Aug 27, 2016 11:30 pm

Hi Statmec,

Thank you for your last post. I feel we are starting to understand each other. Not pretending that we agree, though.
And actually you kind of spoiled my part III :lol:


My only point here is to make a critical analysis of a specific source which has become very important in France.
Thank you very much for having found the fac-simile, i guess that having my google set geographically on "spanish" prevent me from finding it.
Note that i never doubted that the "paper" existed. But that even a first year student in History would have seen that this document fails any tests /criteria to be considered as a reliable source. It fails examination both externally and internally.

And the fac-simile makes things even worse. It is just highly improbable that THIS TEXT - full of typos and misspellings - could have been considered to be sent to the Head of State or the Head of government! In your link, it is dated 1942 or later...That is at least very honest as there is just no way to date it in the first place.
I admit that i was at least expecting a "title", but not even that. It is nothing more that a typed piece of paper.

Here is an example of letters sent to Petain:
https://training.ehri-project.eu/sites/training.ehri-project.eu/files/The%20Central%20Israelite%20Consistory%20protest%20letter%20on%20the%20French%20government%20FR.pdf

Statmec:
A re-statement of what was already in the public sphere - the Führer's prophecy and the mass extermination underway in Poland.


Indeed, but the "prophecy" was well known long before. Hitler indeed pronounced his speech in February 1942, but he already had in January 1941 (not to speak of 1939) it did not enter necessarily the official Jewish argumentation during those periods. Of course, it does not mean that anyone would have thought that the deportees would be resettled in "nice villages", they knew and feared, and rightly so, of enslavement. It was also suspected, that some of those deportees - depending on their nationalities - in this case especially the Polish and Russian Jews would be subject to a even harsher fate, but there is no signs that they were expecting a deadly "common" fate., and among French Jews, certainly not right murders.
There are just too many testimonies about that, including the one of Raymond Lambert, head of the UGIF in the South, who could not ignore what the Consistoire knew.

It is also an established fact that massacres "of civilians" were taking place on the Russian front - but the global perception could have been that those were taking place in the midst of a war, it is also true that Jewish sources, from Poland and the USA were starting to denounce massacres in Poland, but the sources could have been perceived as too biased, even by the Jews living in France, besides this was taking place in a country that no longer existed and on the other side of Europe. IIRC (but i can be corrected as for everything i write) the first serious report about atrocities in Poland were sent from Switzerland to London by mid-August, and considering that the news of deportation that started in Belgium took like 4 to 6 weeks to be known by the Belgian "government" in exile in London, ( actually the diffusion of information from Belgium would have been included in some part IV, :? )
But to be honest here, the word that really "tilt" me was the "methodologically" which will be included in the definition of this genocide, but much later than 1942. To establish that a extermination is methodological, you need concrete facts, not rumors about massacres or wild execution. Calling something methodological implies (or should imply) a knowledge about the "method". So my conclusion is that the content is anachronistic.


You mentioned Zuccotti about Helbronner, and yes (that was meant to be part III), he learned (from a source in Rome (Vatican) about the methodological killing (through Gaz chambers and krematoria) around February 1943, and as she wrote, he tried to get the confirmation of this unbelievable news, and got it from Switzerland, he then decided that the best way to go was NOT to spread the news among the Jewish population still in France. But the Consistoire will send a message to London. Very few times after, Helbronner will be arrested by the Gestapo as he was leaving the office of Laval, and deported with all his family...none returned. So behave the president of the Consistoire we are aked to believe had tried to spread the news of methodological extermination as soon as August 1942!
In his "Cahiers" Raymond Lambert feared up to his deportation of being "enslaved", not murder.

I have posted in another thread ( or did i also here) the diary of Lucien Vidal-Naquet, father of the French historian, high profile Jews, member of the Resistance, wrote in his diary on the 25th of January 1943:
“Days during which, sadly, the French Police, obeying orders from Berlin, proceeded massive requisitions, and arrests in order to satisfy the Nazi Moloch’s need of Human flesh which it quantified: workers, women, children have been arrested without discernment and thrown into sealed wagons, sent to hard labors (Slave labors) in Poland and in Russia…I had never understood as I do today the meaning of this tragic and simple word: “terror”.

again, a life of slavery, but no straight murder.
I could add the testimony of Georges Wellers (although he was after having been denaturalized, well a Russian Jew), the fact that there is no single document from the UGIF that ever mentioned any extermination finality, but then why would it be as its president was the above mentioned Lambert?

This makes the assumptions regarding the "protest of August 42" even more illogical.
By illogical, i mean that no such important document that some authors said it was sent widely has been so ineffective in spreading the important news it contented. To a point when it is legitimate to ask if that document was sent at all. Giving its form, it is highly improbable that it has been.

This is when i was going to quote what you did quote:

StatMec:
Saul Friedlander, in Years of Extermination, p 417, discusses two versions of the protest letter:
In August the Consistoire prepared two drafts of a protest letter. The milder version, not alluding to “extermination” (mentioned in the other draft) or to the participation of the French police or to that of the Germans, was delivered in Vichy on August 25, not to Laval to whom it was addressed and who once again refused to meet with the delegate of French Jewry, but to some low-ranking official.77 That was all.

[77. Simon Schwarzfuchs, Aux prises avec Vichy: Histoire politique des Juifs de France, 1940–1944 (Paris, 1998), pp. 253–56. For the text of a draft of July 28, see Klarsfeld, Vichy- Auschwitz, vol. 1, p. 295.] Sadly the pages of Schwarzfuchs cited by Friedlander are not available in Google Book preview, so I can't check to see if he disagrees that the contact was Jardin, with whom, given Laval's recalcitrance, the Consistoire had much traffic (one gets the idea none of these guys wanted to hear it, but more and more they were forced to). Poznanski does summarize the letter, btw, including the extermination passage, p 290; she has it going to Laval (her archival reference is different to the others: AIU:CC1a; this is the Morris Moch Collection at AIU in Paris).


Here in my very humble opinion lies the key of the mystery. I dare to suggest that there had never been two versions, but one, the one who is not alluding to extermination, who most probably has been sent to Petain and Laval, in reaction to Bousquet decision to reduce the exemptions previously in force ( which would fit with the last paragraphs). The two versions is confirmed by Klarsfeld, but he promoted the idea that unsatisfied with the letter, the Consistory decided to hold another restrainewd meeting (with the members of the delegation quoted above, and of course without the president who was on vacation) which would have wrote this second version - apparently not meant to being sent but brought directly to the Laval office, and because he was not there, just had a chat with an unnamed Chief of Cabinet...who in reality was a celebrity even in those days, father of a post war celebrity, and grand father of yet another one.
By the way i made a mistake in my previous post.
"Le Nain Jaune" (about Jean Jardin) was written by his son Pascal Jardin in which he describes him as a resistant; his grandson, Alexandre Jardin wrote a reverse book called ironically "Des Gens tres bien" or " very good people" in which describes his grandfather as an assassin...the whole french paradox.

You suggested that we might be reading a "post war spin", well i say it is the only sensible conclusion, most probably written in 1946
And yes, it is also legitimate to ask how the "typed piece of paper" made its way as a historical source in mainstream historical works.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:00 am

Balsamo wrote:Not pretending that we agree, though.

Ok, now I see what you're saying. So I cannot say whether we agree or not, as I don't know what is in the various archives cited or exactly what sources these scholars are using to flesh out their accounts.

Balsamo wrote:And actually you kind of spoiled my part III

I do what I can. LOL

Balsamo wrote:It is just highly improbable that THIS TEXT - full of typos and misspellings - could have been considered to be sent to the Head of State or the Head of government! In your link, it is dated 1942 or later...That is at least very honest as there is just no way to date it in the first place.
I admit that i was at least expecting a "title", but not even that. It is nothing more that a typed piece of paper.

I can't say . . . the 'good model" you show appears to be full of x'ing out, etc. But, again, is this the only copy, is there a cover page, etc? I don't know.

Balsamo wrote:Statmec:
A re-statement of what was already in the public sphere - the Führer's prophecy and the mass extermination underway in Poland.


Indeed, but the "prophecy" was well known long before. Hitler indeed pronounced his speech in February 1942, but he already had in January 1941 (not to speak of 1939) it did not enter necessarily the official Jewish argumentation during those periods. Of course, it does not mean that anyone would have thought that the deportees would be resettled in "nice villages", they knew and feared, and rightly so, of enslavement. It was also suspected, that some of those deportees - depending on their nationalities - in this case especially the Polish and Russian Jews would be subject to a even harsher fate, but there is no signs that they were expecting a deadly "common" fate., and among French Jews, certainly not right murders.
There are just too many testimonies about that, including the one of Raymond Lambert, head of the UGIF in the South, who could not ignore what the Consistoire knew.

It is also an established fact that massacres "of civilians" were taking place on the Russian front - but the global perception could have been that those were taking place in the midst of a war, it is also true that Jewish sources, from Poland and the USA were starting to denounce massacres in Poland, but the sources could have been perceived as too biased, even by the Jews living in France, besides this was taking place in a country that no longer existed and on the other side of Europe. IIRC (but i can be corrected as for everything i write) the first serious report about atrocities in Poland were sent from Switzerland to London by mid-August,

This is not how I understand it, the news was reported earlier than that. The "first big," "famous" such report was the 1 July 1942 BBC broadcast which spoke of 700,000 Jews murdered in Poland, not the Russian front (IIRC Marrus & Paxton discuss this and reactions in the underground press?). The information on which the BBC broadcast was based came from the Oyneg Shabes, and Ringelblum wrote in his notes his excitement that the activists had been able to get this news on BBC radio IIRC. I can look all this up, but I don't buy this part of the case you're laying out. The reactions of Jewish organizations to this news was, of course, varied, with a lot of disbelief. Either Zuccotti's view/your view or the alternative, on this basis, is plausible, IMO. As an aside, Jewish diarists in a number of cases connected Hitler's prophecy speeches to emerging reports about the massacres in Poland, so the Consistoire doing so isn't far-fetched.

To underscore the escalating situation, and awareness, on the very same day as the Consistoire's protest (25 August), the US charge d'affaires for Vichy, Pinckney Tuck, warned Laval about the deportations, and within three weeks Cordell Hull, Secretary of State, was telling the French ambassador to the US that deportation fit with announced German plans for the Jews - that is, to "mistreat, enslave and, eventually, exterminate these unhappy human beings in conditions of extreme cruelty."

Balsamo wrote:the word that really "tilt" me was the "methodologically" which will be included in the definition of this genocide, but much later than 1942.

Again, maybe, but consider just the first two JTA reports I could dig up: 1931: "Regular Pogrom Systematically Planned and Organised" and 1941: "Fifty-two thousand Jews, including man, women and children, were systematically and methodically put to death in Kiev following the Nazi occupation of the Ukrainian capital, according to information received today by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency from an unimpeachable source." I've read enough reports like this that the word "methodically" (or "systematically" or "planned") doesn't trip a wire for me. These speculations are where I begin getting lost . . .

Balsamo wrote:the Consistoire will send a message to London. Very few times after, Helbronner will be arrested by the Gestapo as he was leaving the office of Laval, and deported with all his family...none returned. So behave the president of the Consistoire we are aked to believe had tried to spread the news of methodological extermination as soon as August 1942!
In his "Cahiers" Raymond Lambert feared up to his deportation of being "enslaved", not murder.

Yes, I'm aware, of course, of both Helbronner's deportation and the difficulty in understanding what was happening that persisted. In December 1942, OTOH, Lambert was writing in panic about the "extermination" reported in the famous Allies' declaration of that month . . . and tying to some of this was the general nature of the 25 August letter vs the specific detail (IIRC cremation ovens) in what Helbronner heard in 1943 - which is not present in the 1942 letter - those 1943 details could cause a different reaction to what the general reports and inferences of 1942 might have caused . . . it is perfectly reasonable to read these events as a process in which increasingly specific (and horrific) information became available from mid-1942 through 1943 . . . with reactions being not smooth and progressive but herky-jerky . . . all this is why I have hesitated with Zuccotti's reading . . . what she says is possible but I haven't seen that she's demonstrated it . . .

I know that Marrus & Paxton also mention the 1943 report received by Helbronner but forget what they say about it . . .

Balsamo wrote:By illogical

As I've already hypothesized postwar spin, or used in postwar spin, I think it's plausible. But plausible isn't demonstrated. To say that the Consistoire protest letter was typed postwar, I would, well, in my case, need to be able to read French LOL but also examine what the historians who cite the letter have seen to make sure that inferences and deductions are not countered by what's in archives. Just a for instance: last night I looked at Lambert's notebook but couldn't find pages shown for key dates. I just don't have enough information to say that those who've been in the archives haven't got good grounds for what they say (e.g., other references to the letter in diaries etc, are copies of the same version in the various archives, is there any record of anyone receiving the letter, and so on).

Balsamo wrote:You suggested that we might be reading a "post war spin", well i say it is the only sensible conclusion, most probably written in 1946
And yes, it is also legitimate to ask how the "typed piece of paper" made its way as a historical source in mainstream historical works.

Since some of what you speculate, I cannot buy (and I've noted why along the way), what is needed is to "see" more. We started off with questions about a transcription, then a facsimile of a single page of a document that may be 2 pages, maybe longer. What else is in the archives? I will say that the Consistoire's 1946 note reads, even in your translation, self-serving, whether concerning the letter or the meeting.

I frankly don't know enough and don't have the resources/access to figure out more about this letter.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:06 pm

I'd forgotten one more odd detail, a detail that is so specific that it makes me wonder if we are not discussing different versions of a document: Seibel writes explicitly that the "declaration" (he calls it) of the Consistoire "was addressed directly to the 'Chef de l'État Français,' hence Pétain." (p 159) This differs to the transcription you linked to ("au Chef du Gouvernement") and the facsimile I linked to ("au chef du Gouvernement"), hence: Laval. That Seibel quotes the phrase to which he refers suggests, but doesn't prove, that he is looking at a document and copying from it. It would be hard for someone mistakenly to write de l'État Français for du Gouvernement. Perhaps some of the historians we're reading name the recipient as Pétain and some as Laval on account of seeing different documents? Again, have we seen all that these historians have reviewed?
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:39 pm

Statmec:

This is not how I understand it, the news was reported earlier than that. The "first big," "famous" such report was the 1 July 1942 BBC broadcast which spoke of 700,000 Jews murdered in Poland, not the Russian front (IIRC Marrus & Paxton discuss this and reactions in the underground press?).


Ok, you are talking about the Bund report, right? Well, it came out in May 42...Now i am not in a position to have a deep knowledge on how this first report was received - although i agree it was repeated by the press and indeed the BBC...but given what i am reading regarding the information during the last months of 1942, doubts can be expressed that it was taken for granted in one go. Was it taken for granted by the Consistoire? possible but unlikely, because then why wait until the end of August to included - and only at this occasion - in one of its protests? the Bund was a highly socialist organization, at the opposite on the political scale, of the leaders of the Consistory.

The global skepticism is confirmed by the time it took to digest the second important report on Nazi atrocities in Poland, the one of Eduard Schulte, will be sent via Swizterland early August 42. this report will be sent to the US State department which will dismissed it, as well as the foreign office in london. The Foreign office will transfer it to Stephen Wise. Even Stephen Wise will ask the US State Department (again) for the information to be checked before being used....The inquiry would last up to novembre 1942, and Wise would then be allowed to make it public which he will do...but we are now the end of Novembre 1942, and it will only be around that date that another important witness will arrive: Karski!
( Report, La Belgique docile, p 679)

Until then, as far as information is concerned, it is a mess (described for pages i cannot quote them all), reports goes from various round ups and deportation, deportation of STO or of condemned, with contradictory if any info on the destination.

But this is another subject, actually, so.

Again, maybe, but consider just the first two JTA reports I could dig up: 1931: "Regular Pogrom Systematically Planned and Organised" and 1941: "Fifty-two thousand Jews, including man, women and children, were systematically and methodically put to death in Kiev following the Nazi occupation of the Ukrainian capital, according to information received today by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency from an unimpeachable source." I've read enough reports like this that the word "methodically" (or "systematically" or "planned") doesn't trip a wire for me. These speculations are where I begin getting lost . .
.

It is not the word in itself, it is the word being used in a French document in August 42 that stroke me. Your examples refers to specific event, not to a general policy. If the document was referring to the pogrom that took place in Antwerp (after the diffusion of the Eternal Jew), or if it had referred to a specific massacre that would have taken place in France, well allright...or more important if the document had been written by direct witnesses, or Eastern sources.
In this case, it is not only the first reference of a methodological killing in a french document, there will be no follow up. The Consistoire will keep sending protest in 1943, but without any mention of extermination. Hence my suspicion.

In December 1942, OTOH, Lambert was writing in panic about the "extermination" reported in the famous Allies' declaration of that month


Indeed, in december 1942. Still the extract i gave was from summer 1943, if i recall correctly, and in his last letter before deportation, he was still hoping that he could - given his satute - receive some privilege upon arrival. No clue that he forecasted his death as well as the death of his family, which is sadly what was waiting for him. He was not only the contrary of judeo Bolshevist, not even a socialist, quite the contrary.
Those were Jews (and that includes the Consistoire under Helbronner) who rallied Petain in 1940, will keep faith in him despite all the measures through 1941 and most of 1942.
Until well into 1943, the nazis made sure that the UGIF receives hundreds of letters from deportred Jews from France. Enough to keep some forms of illusion in place. Most were convinced that they would be used as man power, just like all the others who were also deported.

As I've already hypothesized postwar spin, or used in postwar spin, I think it's plausible. But plausible isn't demonstrated.


I think that i have demonstrated it, not 100 % of course which is impossible, but if one recaps all my remarks, i guess that the column would be much much longer and any deduction tending to prove the contrary.
The "document" could have been typed in 1943, 44, 45 or 46, there is just no way to determine this, as we agree on the fact that the allegation of massacres and mass murders taking place in the East, would become almost impossible to ignore - even though very few really among the French deportees were fearing to be killed upon arrival, at least that is what the testimonies show, they were fearing enslavement and a hideous future, the end of the lives (as they knew it) and liberty, a martyrdom for sure, but not execution on the spot.

what the historians who cite the letter have seen to make sure that inferences and deductions are not countered by what's in archives.


First of all, it is not a letter! It can be assimilated to a proclamation or a protest, but it is definitely not a letter.
Now, i i were still living in the European civilization, i would have taken half a day at the National Library, and would have checked as much references of this "source". From where i live today, i can only rely on the few book which managed to cross the atlantic with me, and the internet.
I have ordered a copy of Lambert Carnets, will see...but he is quoted very often in most articles and monographs on that period...I am currently reading the last edition of Paxton and Marrus, ... and lol, and i am already took note on points i disagree with :lol:, again...

What is obvious is that example of a specific source - like this one - being so mistreated and interpreted in so different ways, is quite rare.
Some (Cohen) say it was kept from public, others it was distributed almost to anyone they could think off, some ignores the passage refering to extermination (Hilgerg), most since at least Klarsfeld Vichy Auschwitz mentioned it, some take the quote for granted, other doubt its veracity (again Cohen, even if with care).
This is why i search for it, and well you know my personal conclusion by now,

PS: @ Nick Terry, if you are around, your personal stance and opinion on this source would be of great interest.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:36 pm

Balsamo wrote:Statmec:

This is not how I understand it, the news was reported earlier than that. The "first big," "famous" such report was the 1 July 1942 BBC broadcast which spoke of 700,000 Jews murdered in Poland, not the Russian front (IIRC Marrus & Paxton discuss this and reactions in the underground press?).


Ok, you are talking about the Bund report, right? Well, it came out in May 42...

Not only the Bund - information from the Oyneg Shabes was part of what the BBC reports were based on. The BBC broadcasts started in early June; the broadcast that was in French came on 1 July (Marrus & Paxton, p 384). See Kassow, Who Will Write Our History?, pp 298-299, where Kassow mentions two Oyneg Shabes reports as well as quotes from Ringelblum's notes on his satisfaction that OS's work was paying off. The BBC report mentioned 700,000 victims; the protest note, many 100s of 1000s.

Balsamo wrote:Now i am not in a position to have a deep knowledge on how this first report was received - although i agree it was repeated by the press and indeed the BBC...

But you wrote,
the first serious report about atrocities in Poland were sent from Switzerland to London by mid-August

This is factually wrong.

The summer reports had a mixed reception, of course, but were part of the process that led to the Allies' joint declaration, and other statements from the Allies, by December 1942.

Balsamo wrote:Was it taken for granted by the Consistoire? possible but unlikely, because then why wait until the end of August to included - and only at this occasion - in one of its protests? the Bund was a highly socialist organization, at the opposite on the political scale, of the leaders of the Consistory.

This is all entirely irrelevant. You wrote that the first serious reports came later. They didn't. The information in the reports did not only come from the Bund - and I have no idea if the BBC identified the source in any event. Do you?

I am open to evidence that the document(s) were not drawn up in August 1942, but what doesn't convince me is a summer 1942 time line which omits key developments, Hilberg's summary of the document differing from Seibel's etc, your thoughts on the word methodical, a false expectation of settled opinion among French Jews during this period, and so on. Shifting arguments like these - along with analysis of the format of the transcription or the claims that the only reference to the note is Klarsfeld or saying that no other historians have quoted the "extermination" passage or making a supposed mystery of some historians mentioning Laval and others Pétain as the addressee or finding another mystery in that the document has supposedly never appeared on line and so on - strike me as ad hoc pleading for a purpose. To me, the key is what is in the archives that is the basis for the various scholars' references, which we actually do have, to the document. Without knowing that, I feel like I'm left with various misleading statements about the situation in summer 1942 and a good deal of speculation.

As you know, I've not argued that there wasn't skepticism about the emerging reports, I've not said that there was quick or linear acceptance of the emerging reports, so you also seem to be using a strawman argument.

I'm going to drop off here, with this line of thinking. In my mind, it is pure defensiveness and without credibility. Stacking up extraneous details we all know doesn't help, either. By keeping at it, you damage the case you're trying to make. With me, at any rate. I find myself wondering why you keep raising these things rather than talk about what's in the archives and information about the protest.

Balsamo wrote:
Again, maybe, but consider just the first two JTA reports I could dig up: 1931: "Regular Pogrom Systematically Planned and Organised" and 1941: "Fifty-two thousand Jews, including man, women and children, were systematically and methodically put to death in Kiev following the Nazi occupation of the Ukrainian capital, according to information received today by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency from an unimpeachable source." I've read enough reports like this that the word "methodically" (or "systematically" or "planned") doesn't trip a wire for me. These speculations are where I begin getting lost . .
.
It is not the word in itself, it is the word being used in a French document in August 42 that stroke me.

But you wrote:
But to be honest here, the word that really "tilt" me was the "methodologically" which will be included in the definition of this genocide, but much later than 1942. To establish that a extermination is methodological, you need concrete facts, not rumors about massacres or wild execution. Calling something methodological implies (or should imply) a knowledge about the "method". So my conclusion is that the content is anachronistic.

The BBC stories, and others, were all about the German policy of extermination. I grabbed two articles using this kind of terminology - and the BBC stories were not about specific events, not at all. I dare say there was even hyperbole - as well as understatement. Different terms were being tried out during this period to try to get at this new reality, which various reports were communicating to western European and American audiences. I take all this as semantic quibbling because there is every reason to expect various terms, some which will later become widely used, to appear in various sources during this period.

Balsamo wrote:
In December 1942, OTOH, Lambert was writing in panic about the "extermination" reported in the famous Allies' declaration of that month


Indeed, in december 1942. Still the extract i gave was from summer 1943, if i recall correctly, and in his last letter before deportation, he was still hoping that he could . . .

Which is my point about the back and forth nature of thinking: in December 1942 it is extermination, a few months later hope. Even though during this period the Nazis in France were pressing to deport wider groups of Jews, had deported some French Jews, and were pressing as a first step a denaturalization law. It is perfectly reasonable for "establishment" French Jews to be very concerned through late 1942 and 1943, and hopeful. And, to borrow from the title of a book about Jews in Germany during this period (Marion Kaplan), alternate between dignity and despair, with a dose of hope and terror thrown in.

Balsamo wrote:The "document" could have been typed in 1943, 44, 45 or 46, there is just no way to determine this

I don't know that this is true. What I know is true is that I lack access to that which could help determine when the document(s) were typed.

Balsamo wrote:they were fearing enslavement and a hideous future, the end of the lives (as they knew it) and liberty, a martyrdom for sure, but not execution on the spot.

I think fears were for survival, too, some had no idea what was the fate of the deportees, some heard death threats, and I have posted examples. It is a very emotionally confusing and fearful period.

Balsamo wrote:i i were still living in the European civilization, i would have taken half a day at the National Library, and would have checked as much references of this "source". From where i live today, i can only rely on the few book which managed to cross the atlantic with me, and the internet.
I have ordered a copy of Lambert Carnets, will see...but he is quoted very often in most articles and monographs on that period...I am currently reading the last edition of Paxton and Marrus, ... and lol, and i am already took note on points i disagree with :lol:, again...

What is obvious is that example of a specific source

I've explained why I am not convinced that there is just one source for the references to the protest in various scholars' treatment of it.

Balsamo wrote:Some (Cohen) say it was kept from public, others it was distributed almost to anyone they could think off, some ignores the passage refering to extermination (Hilgerg), most since at least Klarsfeld Vichy Auschwitz mentioned it, some take the quote for granted, other doubt its veracity (again Cohen, even if with care).
This is why i search for it, and well you know my personal conclusion by now,

To sustain the case you're making, you have to look in the archives - both specifically with regard to this document and also to its "life." I can't myself do anything beyond consider what others say - I haven't ever researched the Consistoire (or even read a full study of the organization). The case that relies on suppositions and a description of "early news" that I don't recognize doesn't convince me - it feels like you're "reaching": what is needed IMO is explaining what's in the archives and showing how what I've read has it wrong.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby nickterry » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:37 pm

Balsamo wrote:PS: @ Nick Terry, if you are around, your personal stance and opinion on this source would be of great interest.


Maybe by late October I will be 'back' to France/western Europe for a more in-depth look, I don't necessarily have time to look this up and mull over all possible permutations right now.

Re the broadcasts, Anne Frank heard the BBC's rendition of the Bund report, and I interpreted the Consistoire memo in that light so it didn't seem at all weird to me; the invocation of the Feb 42 Hitler speech parallels similar invocations in the same month by Nazis in Romania (Gustav Richter), so again not odd.

There are other west European sources such as underground newspapers that make the connection between the Bund report as rendered by the BBC and the initial deportations. Nobody needed to know about Auschwitz in the west to conclude that deportation was very bad and that given the other news coming out of Eastern Europe, one could legitimately even fear the worst. But the broadcasts did not catch everyone and some were forced to cooperate. It's interesting this protest comes from the Consistoire rather than UGIF who were more directly embroiled with the Nazis as unwilling tools. The Joodsche Raad in the Netherlands were largely in a fog at this same time.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Wed Aug 31, 2016 2:44 pm

This is factually wrong.


Yes i was, at least to some extend.
What i meant was that the killing on the eastern front were known in 1941. The Bund report reached London in May 42, the first OS report in June 42...I have admitted that i did not know the level of credibility it enjoyed among the officials.
My bias was that i was focus on what was going on within the occupied territories. I have a nice collection of french papers published during the occupation - a real treasure, by the way where you can see the same paper changing its editorial tone depending on the period-, and there is no repercussion of it in the protest or correspondences between Vichy vs the UGIF or the Consistoire.

What i meant, after checking because of your information, is that the Consistoire sent protests on:
19th of May 42
29th of May 42
12th of June 42
30th of June 42
28th of July 42

Without, at my knowledge, no reference to anything that could have been inspired by the report.
Nore is it to be found in the last protests of
12th of July 1943
2nd of August 1943
(now i have to check all that, of course)
But there is absolutely no mention of extermination at all in any UGIF documents i have seen.

If i used the term " Serious", is is also because, it was the Schulte report that made the difference and was behind the declaration of December 1942, because it gained the credibility of having being checked before being dispatch.
Of course, i am not denying that new reports were not coming all along, but they will be taken seriously only after the first one.

I admit that i lacked precision,but that was because the core of the topic was not the diffusion of information, but the impact it had in occupied and non-occupied zone, and the availability of those information to the main actors at stake.

But if i am guilty of approximation in my sidelined arguments,
my mistakes are quite insignificant if compared of how the source is presented in Klarsfeld, taken by Seibel, and by Zuccotti who all states that there was a "letter" (wrong), sent to Petain (wrong) and to other institutions (unproved and anyway ineffective) in order to raise awareness of the final fate to be expected by the deportees (wrong again).

If i may, you seem to be much more indulgence with three counter factual statement in two statements, repeated by three well known Historians, than with my approximation use of the term "serious".

The Dominant idea was that the deported Jews would be settled in some colonies in Poland and put to work, as a quote from Laval (already mentioned) illustrates, and even Rebatet dedicated pages in his book on this form of solution, expecting to gain access to former British or Russian possessions, whether it is in Siberia or in Africa, Rebatet does not care as long as they are forbidden to leave the territory given to them. In what condition of living, Antisemite like him did not care, and obviously the Jews had no illusion about it.
Now who among them "knew" after having listened to the BBC? i don't know...Maybe the Consistoire knew...But the issue here is :" Is the document we are working on, is this protest, a reliable source to determine that?"

My conclusion is that there are too many troubling elements to answer YES. Here is one more, taken from Thouroux and mentioned in many articles.
It is related to the discussion about the imposition of the Yellow Star in the Free-zone (which was already occupied). There was a meeting between the Great Rabbi Schwartz - who as we recall was member of the small committee who wrote the protest mentioning the extermination finality of the deportation - the meeting took place on the 23 february 1943.
The Marechal Petain is quoted :
" Tant que je serai vivant, je n'accepterai jamais que cette ignominie qu'est l'étoile jaune soit appliquée en zone Sud ".

or
"As long as i am alive, i will never accept that such a ignominy as the Yellow Star to be applied in the Southern Zone."

The Marechal is said to have concluded: "Pray for me that i live long enough to see the end of this drama" and the Great Rabbi then said:
" " Monsieur le maréchal, il est d'usage dans nos synagogues de prier chaque samedi pour le chef de l'Etat ".
or
"Mister Marshal, it is a common practice in our synagogue to pray each Saturday for the Head of the State"


Again, the question is less whether it was possible for the Consistoire to know the extermination, that to wonder why it would have been a one time inspiration, and as Asher Cohen to wonder why" thereafter, its leaders behave just like there had never been an extermination or like they did not know anything about it."

It is perfectly reasonable for "establishment" French Jews to be very concerned through late 1942 and 1943, and hopeful. And, to borrow from the title of a book about Jews in Germany during this period (Marion Kaplan), alternate between dignity and despair, with does of hope and terror thrown in.


Of course they were concerned, there is no question about that, and it is not the issue.

The issue is the "source" and how it has been accepted, analyzed and used.
And when you say
I don't know that this is true. What I know is true is that I lack access to that which could help establish when the document(s) were typed.


I don't know either. It is not me who state that this is what was sent to "Petain, Laval, the pope, the Journalists" etc on the 25th August of 1942. But That is what is to be found in the academic works you quoted, and many others.
This is the whole issue, how can one affirms something like this based on the "historical source"? there is just no way! And that is the problem, not mine really, but the one of the authors who integrates this silly typed piece of paper that bares no name, no signature and no date into their work, apparently without basic critical analysis of the source.

I am not convinced that there is a single source.


I meant to verify more deeply how this "25th August 42" protest has been quoted and used in past works on Vichy and the Jews. That would have been my first move, then.

To sustain the case you're making, you have to look in the archives - both specifically with regard to this document and also to its "life." I can't myself do anything beyond consider what others say - I haven't ever researched the Consistoire (or even read a full study of the organization). The case that relies on suppositions and a description of "early news" that I don't recognize doesn't convince me - it feels like you're "reaching": what is needed IMO is explaining what's in the archives and showing how what I've read has it wrong.


I am not sustaining any theory but the fact that this document does not respond to any historical criteria to validate it as a reliable source. That is basically it. I wrote maybe too many words explaining why, when just a look at it should be enough.

You concluded your previous post with:

I'd forgotten one more odd detail, a detail that is so specific that it makes me wonder if we are not discussing different versions of a document: Seibel writes explicitly that the "declaration" (he calls it) of the Consistoire "was addressed directly to the 'Chef de l'État Français,' hence Pétain." (p 159) This differs to the transcription you linked to ("au Chef du Gouvernement") and the facsimile I linked to ("au chef du Gouvernement"), hence: Laval. That Seibel quotes the phrase to which he refers suggests, but doesn't prove, that he is looking at a document and copying from it. It would be hard for someone mistakenly to write de l'État Français for du Gouvernement. Perhaps some of the historians we're reading name the recipient as Pétain and some as Laval on account of seeing different documents? Again, have we seen all that these historians have reviewed?


As i said before, there are only two versions of a protest that was written by the Consistoire in August 1942. A version written on the 23rd, but we are told was rejected, and the copy we are working on, we are told was written in by a much smaller committee, and which is supposed to have been given by hand to an unnamed chief of Cabinet, who is no other that a very famous personality.
The portests issued by the Consistoire during the occupation are well known and counted, there are no mystery documents that could save the day so to speak and explain this and that error.

And if i may add, if there is really something more that would have helped their conclusion, it should have been explained in a note how they did reach their conclusion. It is not the reader who is supposed to conclude "they know something i don't know, but they are certainly right".

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:36 pm

This seems to be getting circular. I don't see the anomalies, anachronisms, and oddities with the statement that you do - especially after clarifying what's factual and not. And I don't know enough, and haven't seen enough here, to think that the historians cited are wrong and that the note is fraudulent. So I really don't have anything more to add at this point.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:34 pm

That is because you somehow chose to focus on one part of my argumentation - the most personal one and therefore the most subjective - while kind of neglecting the most obvious reasons to doubts, which is that the document on which is based the Historians cited just does not allow them to conclude what they do conclude, simple as that.
The document as it is presented does not respond to the most basic external criteria that would unable to determine when it was written and by whom it was written and whom it was finally sent to.
This is no interpretation of mine, it should be obvious to anyone.
It is not a case i am trying to make.

If there is a case, it would be to give an explanation how such a anonymous and undated document became a letter, how this letter became a "letter sent to Petain" (while it mentions the Head of Government, and then how this letter which is not one and was not sent but given to a chief of cabinet, became finally a "letter not only sent to Petain, Laval, but also the pope, etc.

We have a transcript issued by an honorable source as well as a fac-simile. There can be no doubt that this is the one that bares the reference given by Zuccotti.

that was the original question and the main issue. And this was the issue i was asking Dr Terry opinion about.

Sorry if i confused it in the first place, being kind of influenced by my current personal research which maybe will be the subject of another topic.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:40 pm

Balsamo, we don't really see eye to eye on the reasons behind where I'm at, but, just to reiterate and leave it at this: without looking into the archives, IMO, you're raising unresolvable points. At least for me. I'm not going to spend more time spinning. - SM
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby nickterry » Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:48 pm

Balsamo wrote:That is because you somehow chose to focus on one part of my argumentation - the most personal one and therefore the most subjective - while kind of neglecting the most obvious reasons to doubts, which is that the document on which is based the Historians cited just does not allow them to conclude what they do conclude, simple as that.
The document as it is presented does not respond to the most basic external criteria that would unable to determine when it was written and by whom it was written and whom it was finally sent to.
This is no interpretation of mine, it should be obvious to anyone.
It is not a case i am trying to make.

If there is a case, it would be to give an explanation how such a anonymous and undated document became a letter, how this letter became a "letter sent to Petain" (while it mentions the Head of Government, and then how this letter which is not one and was not sent but given to a chief of cabinet, became finally a "letter not only sent to Petain, Laval, but also the pope, etc.

We have a transcript issued by an honorable source as well as a fac-simile. There can be no doubt that this is the one that bares the reference given by Zuccotti.

that was the original question and the main issue. And this was the issue i was asking Dr Terry opinion about.

Sorry if i confused it in the first place, being kind of influenced by my current personal research which maybe will be the subject of another topic.


Balsamo, have you really never come across undated, unsigned drafts in archival files? Or found a source that someone thought was so significant at the time that they transcribed it?

Zuccotti gives a clear archival reference: CDJC, CCXIII-15 (4 pp) 1-2. This is apparently the same source that Klarsfeld reproduced in his document editions without including an archival reference; nearly everything else in Vichy-Auschwitz and the Calendrier (expanded version) is from CDJC. The German edition of Vichy-Auschwitz gives the CDJC codes. If I could be arsed, I would go look this up to see if it was included - likely not since the German edition focuses mainly on German-provenance documents. That still doesn't change the fact that the doc has an archival reference which presumably generates a date and an addressee. If it doesn't, then shame on Klarsfeld.

The undated, unaddressed version on McMaster's library site is the same text, but is either a draft before the fact or a transcription after the fact, at some unknown date; given the overall provenance of a cluster of underground/resistance documents, most likely a transcription from WWII and not necessarily later. (It could be later, because plenty of documents were transcribed after 1945, eg for Nuremberg, sometimes for archives that couldn't arrange facsimile photocopying. But the collection has wartime-era materials.)

No student of mine would be allowed to cite the McMaster text with a date, they could however correlate it with the published text and then would have to decide whether this was a draft or a transcription - the screw up with the typing at the bottom of the first page suggests the latter, frankly.

Since the student would have at least one volume of Klarsfeld's Calendrier to hand (I am about to order the other one as it's a mystery to me why my university library has the Sept 42 onwards volume and not its predecessor), they can easily observe that protest letters were extremely common from a variety of quarters in French society at this time. I'd also encourage them to look up other sources (diaries, underground newspapers, reports for the resistance or for different political parties) to see what the contemporary echo was, if any.

Regarding viewing originals vs archival copies, I specifically asked a 2nd year class last November, in their first term of the year, when most had been conducting a deliberately simplified research project exercise (find five source types to analyse in depth), how many had seen a facsimile of a primary source, i.e. a scanned original. This was because they were asked to look up a web page with a translation of an Ottoman Turkish decree from 1945, that also included a scan of the original decree, in Ottoman Turkish. Relatively few students said they had seen facsimiles, because so many were relying on published sources, transcriptions on websites and other educational resources. They go to archives in the 3rd year for the dissertation.

Published document collections are a huge boon, but also insulate the reader from seeing the originals, it's unrealistic however to expect that publishers will make their already expensive volumes even more expensive by including facsimiles of everything. The best solution I saw so far is the one adopted by the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw, which now includes a CD-ROM of the original documents from, in this case, the Ringelblum archive, which can be heartbreaking, e.g. finding a testimony regarding Chelmno written down in what was originally a child's maths class schoolbook, now recycled for the paper.

Digitisation does change matters; one of the awesome things about Yad Vashem's digitisation of part of its collections is seeing facsimiles, scans of photocopies of the original sources, or scans of originals, including of many documents that are most accessible in transcribed form via the IMT Blue Series document volumes. I have seen enough originals from this collection in NARA, Bundesarchiv and other archival files, as well as scans for other digitisation projects like the Harvard Nuremberg Project, for this to be quite routine, but it's still always a thrill to see the original layout of, say, Kube's letter to Lohse of 31 July 1942 (3428-PS).

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby nickterry » Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:24 pm

BTW the above is simply my reaction to the discussion and a very quick glance at McMaster website; I do not, as I previously said, have time to investigate further and read/compare multiple secondary sources plus the various editions of Klarsfeld until the end of October.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:46 pm

Nick Terry:

Balsamo, have you really never come across undated, unsigned drafts in archival files?


:lol:
Draft and transcripts sometimes, yes.
But domuments...My God, all the time actually, since I was mostly working exclusively with archives that were two or three hundred years older, most of them private which means their ordering was as messy as it can get.
Even when those were deposit in public archives, their ordering was messy, not only because the archivist had no time to spend on them, but also because they have been “widely” visited before. Actually, critical analysis of the sources was a time consuming part of every day’s work. Interrupted correspondence (pages missing) or disorganized (not pages number), papers from 1652 mixt up with papers of 1785, etc.

But for those sources there are tools of course, paleography, calligraphy, nature of paper, ink, spelling, abbreviations, stamps, signature, presentation, etc . Only to mention the external criteria.

So yes, the use of those sources requires footnotes sometimes much longer than the information you present out of them.
But with contemporary sources, things get trickier, as for this specific source, but that does not mean that critical analysis should not be done.

There is no problem with the reference. It is indeed a CDJC reference, but this comes from the archive of the Consistory which remained functioning all through the war and the occupation. The CDJC started its operation the year after it was written, in 1943, and the consistory (iirc) accepted to cooperate a bit later that same year. The ordering of those documents is post war anyway. But even if there is no problem with the archival reference, normally it is the content of the document that command its ordering, not the other way round. I mean no one would date a document based on the files it is ordered, not only because archivists do sometimes mistake, but because unfortunately document can wander from a file to another after consultation if they have been removed temporarily, so, no you don’t date a document based on its place in any archive.

Nick Terry:
The undated, unaddressed version on McMaster's library site is the same text, but is either a draft before the fact or a transcription after the fact, at some unknown date; given the overall provenance of a cluster of underground/resistance documents, most likely a transcription from WWII and not necessarily later. (It could be later, because plenty of documents were transcribed after 1945, eg for Nuremberg, sometimes for archives that couldn't arrange facsimile photocopying. But the collection has wartime-era materials.)


Draft or transcription? Good question.
I agree, the way the full space of the sheet is used clearly indicates that it was written during the war, at least at a time when paper was rare, and it was really rare in occupied France. For this reason only, I would tend to disqualify a “draft” which is quite a waste of paper in a time of shortage. On the other hand, a contemporary transcript is of course not to be excluded, it is even likely as you said.
Not so sure about a post war transcription, for eg, Americans had no shortage of papers for the transcription of the Nuremberg document, or so I would think. But the shortage could have lasted longer in France.

Nick Terry:
No student of mine would be allowed to cite the McMaster text with a date, they could however correlate it with the published text and then would have to decide whether this was a draft or a transcription - the screw up with the typing at the bottom of the first page suggests the latter, frankly.


And you would be right, of course.
The Macmaster site is very honest by dating it “ 1942 OR after”. But as I understood it, the library proposes visual historical archive, so I deduct it is a scan of a document, nothing indicates a physical holding.
As for the funny two bottom lines, it is quite usual when you try to fill the sheet completely – I take that as a sign of authenticity that the document is from the wartime – but there are a couple of questions at that stage, the first being why is the transcript incomplete? Why is the title of the text (which is the only indication of the date) missing? And consequently, why didn’t the MacMaster get a scan of the original baring the title, instead of a transcript without it? Nevertheless, the text is authentic.

That being said, I started this discussion based on the copy in pdf of the original text that comes from the site of the memorial de la Shoah in France that has merged with the CDJC. The Pdf gives a title which is the only indication of the date it was issued. The title is also the only difference with the transcript. The only other clue is the testimony of the authors who - as i stated above - declared to have decided to bring their protest to Laval at his office at Vichy, but that as Laval was not there, they met his chief of cabinet - not named in the testimony (the general assembly of the Consistory in 1946) - had a discussion of a couple of hours (sic) and left the protest there.

EDIT to the above: i am writing this pòst when i have available time. Well i have just found the original on the website of the memorial de la Shoah.

The memorial site offers the copies of the original on its website, in four pages, under the same archival reference…and is described for the public who does not want to enlarge the scans of the document.
And in the description, a couple of surprises:
- The document is presented as a letter!
- The letter is attributed to the president Helbronner (who was supposedly in vacation on that date and is not mentioned among the delegates who went to Vichy on the 25th of october 42)
- The letter is also described to be dated from the 25th August 42 (but the only date on the document was added manually, as the orginal typed text does not have any title just like in the transcript).
- At least, it is described as addressed to the head of the Government, Pierre Laval ( and not Petain)
- The text is the same as the transcript from MacMaster.
Again, sorry to say, no title bearing a date, no addressee (formal) but the head of the government, and no signature.
So it is confirmed that all the memorial of the Shoah has under the reference is a typed piece of paper with no date, no formal addressee, and no signature. But the reference CC (Consistoire Central) XIII-15 on each page.

here is the link
http://bdi.memorialdelashoah.org/internet/jsp/core/MmsRedirector.jsp?id=1258496&type=NOTICE#

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby nickterry » Sat Sep 03, 2016 10:34 pm

Thanks, that's helpful. I would call CDJC, CCXIII-15 a dated copy for the file, whether the letter was sent or not would really depend on looking in Vichy government files. StatMech said to me off-forum that Renee Poznanski cites the letter from an entirely different archive, I would look into that and if the file code pointed to some government department or the Consistoire's proper archive, then I'd be happy about saying this was actually sent. Otherwise I would be cautious and say they drafted this and look around for other evidence before saying they got scared.

Wehrmacht and Nazi files are absolutely stuffed full of drafts of letters, ordinances, orders and so forth; the file then usually has a properly completed copy, sometimes multiple copies addressed to individuals, as with some of Himmler's letters to senior SS leaders - one finds a copy for Wolff, a copy for Kaltenbrunner, etc. The undated draft or Aktenvermerk does sometimes occur, and there one can usually date it archaeologically, by its placement in the file, if there is a clear ordering. Himmler's papers are by far the most jumbled, at least in the US-microfilmed version, the Bundesarchiv reordered the papers somewhat, but hardly a single document in the Persoenliche Stab RFSS collection is missing a date.

In my first year course on JFK, I deliberately included a document that is available in facsimile, with 'froms' and 'tos' and date-stamps in addition to the typed date, and names of recipients and writers, plus lots of annexes! The same document's covering letter is available on another website as a transcription, lacking all the bureaucratic paraphernalia. It's actually a CIA circular regarding the rise of conspiracy theories about the assassination of JFK along with an analysis of the major theorists and their claims, plus - and this is the funny bit - press clippings bundled up in the annexes. There are many valuable lessons to be learned from the bundle about how to approach documents.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Sep 03, 2016 10:59 pm

Yes, Poznanski cites AIU:CC1a; this is the Morris Moch Collection at AIU in Paris.

We seem to be dealing with different versions of this letter because . . . the McMaster scan is NOT the same version of the letter, sent or unsent, as the one at Memorial de Shoah. You can easily spot major differences in formatting. And it is said to be in the Diamant Collection, which I think is at McMaster University, which indicates some kind of holding, not simply an online resource (unless the Diamant Collection is simply a virtual collection of some sort). We don’t know what they have (I would think a letter to them would clear it up) but the scan doesn’t look like it was made from a photocopy. Also the McMaster website identifies the document as “ca. 1942” in the caption, "1942 or after” in the footnote, so it is hard to place too much emphasis on the footnote. In the footnote they say, "The translation is taken from: Lazare, Rescue as Resistance, 159,” so that book might have a reference to it.

It is quite odd that Seibel has apparently seen "chief of government" and rendered it "chief of state."

I agree with Nick, to find out whether the Consistoire's letter was sent/received means looking for a version in Vichy archives or contemporary references to it. I wonder why Zuccotti lists so many potential recipients and how she knew the list.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Sun Sep 04, 2016 1:02 am

Nevertheless the most repeated reference in most books and articles - french most of the time - as well as Klarsfeld's original reference is still this
CC XIII-15, and there is no doubt that the fac-simile proposed by the memorial de la Shoah, which has as i said been merged with the CDJC in the beginning of 2000, is the original one, the source of everything so to speak. Consequently, the transcripts or copies of them do not matter much anymore. Those bares the archival reference on it!
The main question was if the original had any element allowing anyone to date it, and truth is, whatever one turns it around, the answer is no, the original does not bare the title we at least had on the pdf.

Nick Terry:
whether the letter was sent or not would really depend on looking in Vichy government files


You can call me a obsessive critical analysis of sources, but the first step would be to determine if the "original source" we now have could ever have been considered to have been sent to a head of State. I mean really the first step, without exuding the possibility for it to be in the Vichy files. But remember that for some Historians the story is that the "letter" (ok i cannot used the term), so the "text" was not only sent to Laval, Petain, but to whoever it was possible to send it to (with the strange exception of London, New York and Washington),

By first step i mean, that in France and the french culture, letters are - wrong wordings- HAVE to be very formal, even today, and that the more the addressee is important the more the rules have to be applied, otherwise it would be the last letter those addressees would even open coming from you. I mean you just don't end a letter with a "Best regards" in French!! You HAVE to use a full sentence like, "Veuillez agreer, monsieur le President, le sentiment de ma parfaite loyaute", followed by a signature...And of course, the first words of the letter start with " Monsieur le President" before even presenting the single idea, this is just how it worked and still works today. Without those elements, there is just no letter - at least in the French sense of the term..

The Consistoire was known to be very legalistic, loyal to the Regime at least in its formal way, as illustrated with further correspondences with the Vichy institutions. There is just no way the CCIF would have even consider to have sent the text we have, no way.
That does not exclude that no "letter was sent" in August 42, but not THIS TEXT.
And without being rude by repeating myself, the authors of the text themselves do not say they send it, they brought it to Vichy...to whom they don't say.

Whatever they have sent, if we have to believe what many historians are repeating, it would not only to be found in the Vichy Archives, but also, in the French church's, in the archive of Pasteur Boegner's, in the Vatican's, the Red Cross's, and various official news paper's, etc.

Nick, earlier you proposed:
I'd also encourage them to look up other sources (diaries, underground newspapers, reports for the resistance or for different political parties) to see what the contemporary echo was, if any.


Well, good advice, and this is exactly what i did and still doing. there are just no contemporary echoes. And on that chapter i can expand a lot.

Wehrmacht and Nazi files are absolutely stuffed full of drafts of letters, ordinances, orders and so forth; the file then usually has a properly completed copy, sometimes multiple copies addressed to individuals, as with some of Himmler's letters to senior SS leaders


Of course, but can one really compare the level of resource of a Jewish institution in Vichy France with the level resources available to the Nazis.
It was the Germans who controlled the stocks.

Statmec:
Y
es, Poznanski cites AIU:CC1a; this is the Morris Moch Collection at AIU in Paris.


I do not doubt there are some copies, tranbscripts or fac-similes around. But there is no reason to think that the Central Consistory would have kept some copies while the original of the text, issued by them, is somewhere around, whether that would be in the Moch collection or in another. The scans they give cannot be anything but the originals, they features the archival reference of the Central Consistory (CC), were kept in the CDJC util the merger, and that is the reference given by Klarsfleld and Zuccotti ( and Seibel refers to Klarsfled), most french authors referring to the same Archival reference. THOSE on the memorial de la Shoah website are THE ONES.

I think we can at least agree with the fact that this source is problematic which might explain why its place in a narrative (as well as its intrepretation) is so contradictory depending on the author (Seibel or Zuccotti vs Hilberg or Cohen).
My conclusion is that we are facing a typical case of complacency...whether it takes the form of repeating Karlsfeld's words or doing the same but giving the original reference, but without bothering to check personally. I mean, things like this just happen.
So should one put the "shame on Klarsfeld"?

Anyway i have sent some emails to get some other opinions, i have also a couple of books on their way, but that could take some times.
I am not done with it.

thanks for your contributions

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby nickterry » Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:44 am

Balsamo wrote:
Nick Terry:
whether the letter was sent or not would really depend on looking in Vichy government files


You can call me a obsessive critical analysis of sources, but the first step would be to determine if the "original source" we now have could ever have been considered to have been sent to a head of State.


My answer was implicitly 'no', I can make that explicit right now and say: hell no.

This requires a much more thorough trawl through the entirety of the post-1945 historiography of the Holocaust in France, to ascertain when it was first cited, who by, and what happened thereafter. And then to correlate this with the accessibility of different archives in France, since it seems that the convenience of CDJC is a factor here.

Also a careful check of biographies of Laval.

Lambert's diary (he was with UGIF) has some very interesting retrospective entries from September 1942 on shenanigans during visits to Vichy by Jewish officials in early August 1942. He portrays Helbronner as unconcerned and in effect, on holiday throughout August 1942. This would suggest to me the following possibility: that someone else in the Consistoire drafted the letter but it was not sent.

I really need to re-read all the recent standard accounts on this, but once again: can't do it right now.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:04 am

Both scans look like drafts in that they lack a salutation and a close. The date appears to me to have been pencilled onto the Museum de la Shoah version at the same time as the CDJC reference number. A existence of a draft, I think we all agree, does not mean that a letter was sent or protest delivered. We need a final version plus recipients and "echoes" or "traces" to know that for sure.

One point in Zuccotti I cannot track down is this: she says (like Seibel) that the protest was sent to Pétain, not Laval, but she fudges whether it was sent to others: the “protest letter” was “sent to Pétain on August 25,” she writes, and “Members of the Consistoire agreed to send copies of the same protest to all rabbis and presidents of Jews communities, as well as to the papal nuncio, Paster Boehner, the president of the Red Cross, and various priests, pastors, and government ministers, prefects, and journalists.” p 150 She doesn't say any more about these "copies." Zuccotti's footnote simply refers to the CDJC holding and no more. Why does Zuccotti write what she does about recipients, given that the CDJC holding doesn't support what she's written? (As noted, Zuccotti doesn't think that the protest-writers understood really what they were hearing - and that what they were hearing was also quite general. Also, looking at Seibel against Zuccotti, I wouldn't say that their treatment is so different - Seibel doesn't treat the protest at length, as Zuccotti does, but what he writes is quite close to what she writes.)

Poznanski writes about "wide publicity" given the 25 August 1942 protest (p 291) - is she alluding to the same sort of list of protest recipients that Zuccotti mentioned? Her reference for this is "AIU:CC-7, Consistory session of August 23, 1942" (see below on 23 August). Is this the "agreed" list of recipients? Why does Poznanski say that "wide publicity" was given and not only "agreed"?

Poznanski also notes a follow-up to Jardin in October, and, like Seibel, gives the more explicit news in J'Accuse no. 2 (20 October) as context for what was being said. Poznanski's interpretation, again not as lengthy as Zuccotti's, is pretty much the same as Zuccotti's.

Poznanski's handling of the broader context and what reports the French Jews were hearing is in line with what I've written above, which isn't surprising given that Poznanski's book is one that has shaped my understanding of the period, for better or worse. Poznanski references a very explicit BBC broadcast of 23 August, made in France, that gave information on Czerniakow's suicide along with speculation that the "unknown destination" was "death, massacre. . . ." Poznanski's references cite sessions and notes of the Consistorie on what they were hearing (e.g., she has Helbronner sending Robert Kiefe to Vichy on 11 August and 20 August and that "he circulated a dossier on the Nazis' extermination plan and their atrocities against the Jews"). However, checking Poznanski's references I see that the AIU archive looks to be a large holding of Consistory documents; she says explicitly (I'd forgotten this detail) that the document at AIU, CC1a is "the original manuscript" and is reprinted in Klarsfeld. (Is what's in Klarsfeld identical then to the CDJC version? If so, all three are the same version, and the McMaster/Diamant copy is some retyping or earlier version.)

Honestly, to understand more, I'd ask Renee Poznanski. Her coverage, looking at it again, is thorough and she would know the archives intimately.

This is a description of the "Diamant Collection," where the McMaster University copy is held.

Without doing more, which I can't do, I don't understand why Zuccotti and Seibel are explicit that a letter was sent and sent to Pétain rather than Laval (Zuccotti cites only the CDJC version and Seibel, only the Klarsfeld version), what leads Zuccotti to list "agreed" recipients, or what Poznanski read in the AIC archive. I am not saying that the CDJC copy is not the "original" (it sounds like it was a copy of the original) but rather asking what is the Diamant version and what impelled some historians to write about the protest as they did (a letter sent, a letter received, a letter agreed to go to a number of recipients, etc).
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:41 am, edited 4 times in total.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby nickterry » Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:22 am

It's the CDJC, your constant misspelling is as annoying as seeing someone talk about the RHSA for Heydrich's office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of ... umentation

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:40 am

nickterry wrote:It's the CDJC, your constant misspelling is as annoying as seeing someone talk about the RHSA for Heydrich's office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of ... umentation

Whoopsie, sorry, will edit! I see I am back and forth . . . duh. Kind of like Wanasee.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby nickterry » Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:47 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
nickterry wrote:It's the CDJC, your constant misspelling is as annoying as seeing someone talk about the RHSA for Heydrich's office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of ... umentation

Whoopsie, sorry, will edit! I see I am back and forth . . . duh. Kind of like Wanasee.


My eyes, my eyes!

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:51 am

Well you are 100% right, and my settling on the wrong version of the acronym is a gaffe. Trust me, it is now right in the thread where I could change it - and I will not start typing Wanasee. Thanks for catching such nonsense on my part!

Poznanski's coverage is really interesting IMO on the context. Details I'd forgotten but which are generally "in my head." She uses a different archive from the others, which she describes as having the "original," which is also interesting.

I admit to being out of my depth here . . . I have to exit the discussion pretty much because of that. This isn't something about which I have the language, archive familiarity, and specialty knowledge to do more with. For me, onto other things . . .
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:49 pm

Misspelling can happen, but better to be careful.

To Nick:

Besides, I don't think the Vannsee meeting or Heidrych's RHSA is relevent to this discussion, nor would be Poel's WSHA. But one can wonder why such a letter was not sent to the CJQG of mister Darrier de Perquoix who should have been really concerned by how the General Consistory of French Jews (GCFJ) was reacting to important news. Another question is to knew whether Petein or even Laval had listened to the CNBC broadcast of 23 of august 42?
Did Raoul Lamberg from the UGIV listened to it?
Did the Eichman's men in Paris: Daneker and friends? Did it have any influence on their communication with the Vichi government?

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby nickterry » Sun Sep 04, 2016 5:57 pm

Balsamo wrote:Misspelling can happen, but better to be careful.

To Nick:

Besides, I don't think the Vannsee meeting or Heidrych's RHSA is relevent to this discussion, nor would be Poel's WSHA. But one can wonder why such a letter was not sent to the CJQG of mister Darrier de Perquoix who should have been really concerned by how the General Consistory of French Jews (GCFJ) was reacting to important news. Another question is to knew whether Petein or even Laval had listened to the CNBC broadcast of 23 of august 42?
Did Raoul Lamberg from the UGIV listened to it?
Did the Eichman's men in Paris: Daneker and friends? Did it have any influence on their communication with the Vichi government?


All interesting questions but I would prefer to revisit this topic at a later date when I have a chance to survey various works and sources properly. This topic has been running for two years, there are many other themes that deserve your attention, we will return to this no doubt, but if you have found another tidbit - save it for the time being.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:02 pm

nickterry wrote:
Balsamo wrote:Misspelling can happen, but better to be careful.

To Nick:

Besides, I don't think the Vannsee meeting or Heidrych's RHSA is relevent to this discussion, nor would be Poel's WSHA. But one can wonder why such a letter was not sent to the CJQG of mister Darrier de Perquoix who should have been really concerned by how the General Consistory of French Jews (GCFJ) was reacting to important news. Another question is to knew whether Petein or even Laval had listened to the CNBC broadcast of 23 of august 42?
Did Raoul Lamberg from the UGIV listened to it?
Did the Eichman's men in Paris: Daneker and friends? Did it have any influence on their communication with the Vichi government?


All interesting questions but I would prefer to revisit this topic at a later date when I have a chance to survey various works and sources properly. This topic has been running for two years, there are many other themes that deserve your attention, we will return to this no doubt, but if you have found another tidbit - save it for the time being.



:lol:

Actually, my very last post is meant to be classified in the N.T.B.T.S archives... (that stands for Not to be Taken Seriously) :lol:

as i have said, i am waiting for some replies and a couple of books.
I agree that at this stage, everything has been said.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:53 am

Statmec:

One point in Zuccotti I cannot track down is this: she says (like Seibel) that the protest was sent to Pétain, not Laval, but she fudges whether it was sent to others: the “protest letter” was “sent to Pétain on August 25,” she writes, and “Members of the Consistoire agreed to send copies of the same protest to all rabbis and presidents of Jews communities, as well as to the papal nuncio, Paster Boehner, the president of the Red Cross, and various priests, pastors, and government ministers, prefects, and journalists.” p 150 She doesn't say any more about these "copies." Zuccotti's footnote simply refers to the CDJC holding and no more. Why does Zuccotti write what she does about recipients, given that the CDJC holding doesn't support what she's written? (As noted, Zuccotti doesn't think that the protest-writers understood really what they were hearing - and that what they were hearing was also quite general. Also, looking at Seibel against Zuccotti, I wouldn't say that their treatment is so different - Seibel doesn't treat the protest at length, as Zuccotti does, but what he writes is quite close to what she writes.)


Ok, i finally got my old Klarsfled sent to me from Europe.
I think i can now explain part of the confusion in Zuccotti and Seibel rendition.

The consistory actually held three reunion between August 23 and August 25 1942. The minutes of those meeting are available.
The first meeting - it is confirmed that Hellbronner, as well as David Olmer and Andre Weill were excused and not present - was held to assess the dramatic events. It is decided that it was urgent that the president (Hellbronner) get in contact with Laval. Mister Keife made a repòrt about his meetings with the still unnamed chief of Cabinet of Laval. Next are the discussion of the protest to be issued, and after long exchanges, it is decided that the task will be given to a smaller committee. The Assembly decide that the protest would be given to Laval by a delegation presided by Great Rabbi Schwartz.
End of the session.

On the next day, August 24th, the president of the Assembly (mister Adolphe Caen) tells that he phoned the president Hellbronner but could only speak to his wife! The wife nevertheless told him that her husband was supporting all the Assembly's initiatives. She said that Hellbronner was really sorry not to be able to Vichy because of health concerns.
One member of the board, mister Jacques Meyer, said that the protest which will be adopted - so still not written - will have to be spread as much as possible, to personalities but also to the regional branches of the Consistory. Each regional delegate will then be in charge to make copies and send them to the members of the community, the rabbis, etc.

The president (Caen) agrees and it is decided that 50 copies of the "not yet written" protest will be made and send to
1. All the members of the Consistoire through the regional delegates.
2. To the presidents of the local (Jewish) communities
3. To the Marechal, to the nuncio, to Pastor Boegner, to the president of the international red cross, to the prelates (Catholic Church), ministers, prefects and journalists, as well as to mister Jarblum and Fischer.

This ends the ordinary session.
It is followed by the extraordinary session:
The topic is the study of the protest to be addressed to the head of government concerning the deportation of foreign "Israelites" surrendered to the Germans
Herer i will quote:
"After various obervations made by MM. Rene Meyer, Georges Wormser, Jacques Meyer, THIS text is adopted.

the session ends with this quote:
"May God judge us not only on our acts but also on our intention, May he grant that be achieved the two results we sought that is to ease the pain which we unfortunately cannot prevent of our foreign brothers, and to spare our french coreligionists from additional ordeals.
The next meeting is to be held on the 28th of September."


The next day, that is the 25th, the delegations went to Vichy, well we know how it ended.

The next documents presented by Klarsfeld is the protest as we know it.

It is getting late, so i will comment that tomorrow.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16135
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:33 am

thanks, Laval not listed among the 50 intended recipients?
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:25 am

No, because the protest was to be brought to him.
Those intended recipients were to receive a copy of the protest - the one that was supposed to be be submitted to Laval the next day...

More on this tomorrow.


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests