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

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:44 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:thanks, Laval not listed among the 50 intended recipients?


The origin of the confusion:

the confusions are obvious, all three documents (the minutes of the two assemblies, as well as the protest itself confirm that from day one the Consistory decided to react to the raffle in the " free zone" through a written protest and not a letter. This decision was taken on the 23rd to reach Laval (and not Petain) and to bring him physically a written protest through a delegation. As soon as the 23rd it is clear that they would be NO LETTER.
Through mister Keife, we know that the Consistory had previous contact with mister Jardin, chief of Cabinet of President Laval.
Still at this point, it was clear that the Consistory considered it should express his protest through his president, Hellbronner.
To sum up the 23rd meeting:
- assessment of the tragic situation,
- need for a reaction.
- reaction through a protest brought physically to LAVAL, and through the president of the consistory.
- Discussion on how the protest should be written down but postponed to the next day.

On the 24th, the board of the Consistory is confirmed that Hellbronner would not be available.
It is decided that the protest who will still be brought to Laval by a delegation, will be copied and that those copies would be sent to about everyone who matters in France, as well as the diplomatic corps.
This is the stage where the protest could have been confused with "!a LETTER to Petain", although the Marechal is only one of the many potential recipients of a COPY of the protest.
But according to the minutes, the protest was adopted and written down on the 24th.

It is not clear whether the authors did rely on Klarsfeld transcripts of the minutes and the protest (as presented in his work) or if they did get access to the original archives. If they did get access of the archives, the question is how those documents are presented. In a file containing all the papers, that is, is the presentation clear to make the distinction between the Assembly (for examples does the original documents mention the date of the respective meeting or not?).
If they did consult the archives, was their level of french enough to grasp the nuances between those meetings and the protest? Or did they rely on a translator who could very well mixed things up?

if they only put their trust in Klarsfled summary which is backed by the above documents, well things are more difficult to understand, as the book - at least i guess has been translated in English, and its chronology is evident (when it comes to the document in the second part of the book)

On the other hand, the way Klarsfeld present the "protest" well...how to put this...can lead to some misinterpretations.
As a matter of fact, Klarsfeld gives the 25th of August as the date of the protest. (although we know now that was written the day before)...And of course, in fine, we now also know that the document in question is not dated at all. But still it mentions that the solemn protest was to he hand over to Laval.
Klarsfeld adds that " The authors of this documents are at the mercy of a reaction from Laval and his police, and because of that, their courage has to be outlined" (PS: more on this later if needed)
The pages dedicated to the protest of the consistory is (surprisingly short), in my edition pages 156-157, and no distinction between the dates are to be found in those two pages (actually 1 and a half).

Here is my translation of Klarsfeld rendition:
" The ,member of the Consistory, aware that they are living one of the most tragic hour of the history of the Jewish community, decide to write down a motion of protest against the deportation and to give it to the head of government through a delegation, the delegation is to be conducted by the Great Rabbi of France (Schwartz). A Second meeting is called on morning of the 24th of August and decides who would be the recipients of the motion of protest: It will be addressed to the Marechal Petain, etc..
.
Serge Klarsfeld, "Vichy Auschwitz", Fayard, 1983, p 156)

I let everyone judge this summary, which is quite surrealistic in my opinion, but offers the explanation of the confusion. From reading the above paragraph, one can honestly deduct that A protest has been written down by the Consistory and send to the Marechal Petain. Therefore, a motion of protest decided by a private Assembly and meant to be given by hand to Laval, can be understood as a protest written down and sent directly to Petain and all the other folks mentioned in the minutes.
the authors definitely relied on Klarsfeld's narrative instead of the primary source, that is the only explanation. As the only name written in Klarsfeld "summary" is Petain.

As for Klarsfeld rendition, well what can i add?
Can minutes from a private association serve as a proof of concrete actions? I do not doubt that those assemblies of the consistory took place. Sure decision were taken. But the minutes offer no clue whatsoever of what the assembly knew about the true nature of what was taking place ( that is extermination).
We can read that a tragedy was taking place, that the members of the Consistory were shocked, alarmed and that there was an emergency to act. But there is not a single mention of extermination in them, not one hint! Everything is revealed in the undated protest only.

I am really not happy at all, and that is an understatement, but i can only conclude that it should raise some question of what "peers review" actually means in this case. It is fine for me to rely on a secondary source you trust, but then you give your reference as it is, that is Klarsleld pages 156, but you do not send the reader to an archive that does not contains any support of what you are saying!!!!

PS: I am ready to translate the four pages dedicated to the documents, as well as the 1.5 pages of Klarsfeld summary, if needed.
If anyone has a better explanation, i am open to it.

PS: still waiting for some answers to my emails, but i fear i have left for too long, maybe they are all obsessed to decide whether the Gauls are or are not the ancestors of the French.
But i going to shake the tree... :D and keep your updated

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14888
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 Dec 13, 2016 10:45 am

Returning to the main theme of this thread, in his new book Fritzsche quotes at length from the diary of Hélène Berr, a young Jewish woman from Paris (who in spring '44 was transported to Auschwitz, then taken in fall '44 to Bergen-Belsen, where she perished the following spring). Berr worked for UGIF, which gave her access to a great deal of information about the deportations of Jews from France. In 1944 Berr asked herself a question which David never answered (among so many in this thread). Commenting on a deportation of 11 Jewish children in February 1944, Berr asked:
What use are the children? They don't send wives and children with the non-Jewish workers who go to Germany. The monstrous incomprehensibility and illogical horror of the whole thing boggle the mind. But there's probably nothing to work out, because the Germans aren't even trying to give a reason or a purpose. They have one aim, which is extermination.

Berr gave her answer to why the children - David has none. Fritzsche says that at this late hour in the Final Solution in France, Berr had begun using the term asphyxiating gas in her diary. She imagined herself "in Upper Silesia, maybe dead . . . snuffed out abruptly." (Fritzsche, p 188)

As an aside, Fritzsche notes that Berr, in November 1943, made a diary entry about the BBC radio news stories concerning "frightful details" about "the camps in Poland. Fritzsche assumes, from context and verbiage, that Berr had heard earlier broadcasts but not made a diary note about these. The shocking radio broadcasts on the BBC were first made in June 1942. In the Netherlands, both Anne Frank (in October 1942) and Etty Hillesum (late June that year) mentioned the broadcasts in their respective diaries. (Fritzsche, p 186)
"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: 14888
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 Dec 17, 2016 11:52 pm

David? You gave up?
"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: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:26 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:David? You gave up?


Sorry to disappoint but it has been a long time since this thread was more about me and you... :lol:

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14888
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 Dec 18, 2016 2:18 am

LOL
"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: 14888
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 Apr 09, 2017 11:00 pm

From Le Monde, thanks to my wife, Marine Le Pen today:
« Je pense que la France n’est pas responsable du Vél’d’Hiv . . . Je pense que, de manière générale, plus généralement, d’ailleurs, s’il y a des responsables, c’est ceux qui étaient au pouvoir à l’époque, ce n’est pas LA France. La France a été malmenée dans les esprits depuis des années. En réalité, on a appris à nos enfants qu’ils avaient toutes les raisons de la critiquer. De n’en voir que peut-être que les aspects historiques les plus sombres. Je veux qu’ils soient à nouveau fiers d’être Français. »
"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
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5159
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

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

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:50 pm

For those who do not speak French:
"I think France is not responsible for Vél'd'Hiv. . . I think that, generally speaking, more generally, if there are any officials, those who were in power at the time, it is not France. France has been mired in the spirits for years. In fact, our children were taught that they had every reason to criticize her. To see only perhaps the darkest historical aspects. I want them to be proud again to be French."

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:59 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:From Le Monde, thanks to my wife, Marine Le Pen today:
« Je pense que la France n’est pas responsable du Vél’d’Hiv . . . Je pense que, de manière générale, plus généralement, d’ailleurs, s’il y a des responsables, c’est ceux qui étaient au pouvoir à l’époque, ce n’est pas LA France. La France a été malmenée dans les esprits depuis des années. En réalité, on a appris à nos enfants qu’ils avaient toutes les raisons de la critiquer. De n’en voir que peut-être que les aspects historiques les plus sombres. Je veux qu’ils soient à nouveau fiers d’être Français. »


:lol:
Well here is a translation for all:

Marine Le Pen said:
" I think that France is not responsible for the "Val d'hiv"...I think that, as general way, and more generally, if there are people responsible for this, it was those who held the power in those days, but not The FRANCE. France has been mistreated within public spirits for years. In reality, we have learned to our children that they had all the rights to criticize it (the country), to focus only on the darkest aspects of its history. I want them to be pround once again to be French"


Well sorry to say, but there are some truth in this speech.
Actually that was the position of Charles de Gaulle, and i would even say the foundation of the fourth and fifth Republic. This stances lasted until the election of President Chirac who opened the door of a kind of pandora box by assuming the responsibility, not only by the Vichy Regime, but by the French institutions (body of States, from the top to the bottom).

As you might have guessed, i cannot accept that logic. First because, i cannot accept any form of collective guilt. Secondly, because it basically denies all the efforts that had been made to resists the Nazi occupation, it denies the tens of thousands of Jews who in fact were saved, not by the Regime, but by the Nation, the tens of thousands helped to get through the Spanish borders, or to North Africa, etc, of those who were just hidden within the country.
Of course, when Marine Le Pen says it, it can become polemical, and it will of course, especially weeks before the election.
But then, president Holland went further than Chirac by implying that the whole country, the French Nation, held responsibility for this tragedy. Which is of course non sense, and is probably what MLP was addressing.

The French Republic has some guilt, no doubt, but not France.

Oups sorry Jeffk
Last edited by Balsamo on Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5159
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

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

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:00 am

Quite all right, in fact, I think from now on I'll leave the French to you.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:02 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Quite all right, in fact, I think from now on I'll leave the French to you.


I have nothing to say against the translation... ;)

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5159
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

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

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:07 am

Balsamo wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:Quite all right, in fact, I think from now on I'll leave the French to you.


I have nothing to say against the translation... ;)


Ah, but my French sucks.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14888
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 Apr 10, 2017 12:09 am

Balsamo wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:From Le Monde, thanks to my wife, Marine Le Pen today:
« Je pense que la France n’est pas responsable du Vél’d’Hiv . . . Je pense que, de manière générale, plus généralement, d’ailleurs, s’il y a des responsables, c’est ceux qui étaient au pouvoir à l’époque, ce n’est pas LA France. La France a été malmenée dans les esprits depuis des années. En réalité, on a appris à nos enfants qu’ils avaient toutes les raisons de la critiquer. De n’en voir que peut-être que les aspects historiques les plus sombres. Je veux qu’ils soient à nouveau fiers d’être Français. »


:lol:
Well here is a translation for all:

Marine Le Pen said:
" I think that France is not responsible for the "Val d'hiv"...I think that, as general way, and more generally, if there are people responsible for this, it was those who held the power in those days, but not The FRANCE. France has been mistreated within public spirits for years. In reality, we have learned to our children that they had all the rights to criticize it (the country), to focus only on the darkest aspects of its history. I want them to be pround once again to be French"


Well sorry to say, but there are some truth in this speech.
Actually that was the position of Charles de Gaulle, and i would even say the foundation of the fourth and fifth Republic. This stances lasted until the election of President Chirac who opened the door of a kind of pandora box by assuming the responsibility, not only by the Vichy Regime, but by the French institutions (body of States, from the top to the bottom).

As you might have guessed, i cannot accept that logic. First because, i cannot accept any form of collective guilt. Secondly, because it basically denies all the efforts that had been made to resists the Nazi occupation, it denies the tens of thousands of Jews who in fact were saved, not by the Regime, but by the Nation, the tens of thousands helped to get through the Spanish borders, or to North Africa, etc, of those who were just hidden within the country.
Of course, when Marine Le Pen says it, it can become polemical, and it will of course, especially weeks before the election.
But then, president Holland went further than Chirac by implying that the whole country, the French Nation, held responsibility for this tragedy. Which is of course non sense, and is probably what MLP was addressing.

The French Republic has some guilt, no doubt, but not France.

Oups sorry Jeffk

She seems to me to be making a very intentional political-polemical point and IMO engaging in metaphysics to put it across. Hers is almost the opposite of collective guilt: metaphysical exoneration of the Nation in the service of restoration of national pride and belief . . . by minimization of the dark/ugly side of the history and exaggeration of its critique. Identifying so-called elites with the critique of the Nation and its "mistreatment." We've been round and round on this - and won't agree either this time.
"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: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:08 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:From Le Monde, thanks to my wife, Marine Le Pen today:
« Je pense que la France n’est pas responsable du Vél’d’Hiv . . . Je pense que, de manière générale, plus généralement, d’ailleurs, s’il y a des responsables, c’est ceux qui étaient au pouvoir à l’époque, ce n’est pas LA France. La France a été malmenée dans les esprits depuis des années. En réalité, on a appris à nos enfants qu’ils avaient toutes les raisons de la critiquer. De n’en voir que peut-être que les aspects historiques les plus sombres. Je veux qu’ils soient à nouveau fiers d’être Français. »


:lol:
Well here is a translation for all:

Marine Le Pen said:
" I think that France is not responsible for the "Val d'hiv"...I think that, as general way, and more generally, if there are people responsible for this, it was those who held the power in those days, but not The FRANCE. France has been mistreated within public spirits for years. In reality, we have learned to our children that they had all the rights to criticize it (the country), to focus only on the darkest aspects of its history. I want them to be pround once again to be French"


Well sorry to say, but there are some truth in this speech.
Actually that was the position of Charles de Gaulle, and i would even say the foundation of the fourth and fifth Republic. This stances lasted until the election of President Chirac who opened the door of a kind of pandora box by assuming the responsibility, not only by the Vichy Regime, but by the French institutions (body of States, from the top to the bottom).

As you might have guessed, i cannot accept that logic. First because, i cannot accept any form of collective guilt. Secondly, because it basically denies all the efforts that had been made to resists the Nazi occupation, it denies the tens of thousands of Jews who in fact were saved, not by the Regime, but by the Nation, the tens of thousands helped to get through the Spanish borders, or to North Africa, etc, of those who were just hidden within the country.
Of course, when Marine Le Pen says it, it can become polemical, and it will of course, especially weeks before the election.
But then, president Holland went further than Chirac by implying that the whole country, the French Nation, held responsibility for this tragedy. Which is of course non sense, and is probably what MLP was addressing.

The French Republic has some guilt, no doubt, but not France.

Oups sorry Jeffk

She seems to me to be making a very intentional political-polemical point and IMO engaging in metaphysics to put it across. Hers is almost the opposite of collective guilt: metaphysical exoneration of the Nation in the service of restoration of national pride and belief . . . by minimization of the dark/ugly side of the history and exaggeration of its critique. Identifying so-called elites with the critique of the Nation and its "mistreatment." We've been round and round on this - and won't agree either this time.


I do not recall that we were in such a disagreement regarding this topic, except maybe on some parts of Paxton.

Regarding the Bitch, of course, it is intentional at two weeks of the presidential election she still leads globally. I think her motivation are to break again the "political correctness" almost everyone in France is fed up with. On a side note, this race is absolutely insane, with the two major parties ( UMP (center-right) and the PS (socialist party) out of the race, with 17% and 9% of the vote.
The far left represented by Melanchon who could qualify as communist, is now at 19%.
Politically, i think Marine wants to trap her major competitor, Emmanuel Macron - who does not belong to any Party, but who worked for the Rothschild bank, and who HAS to react, to show that he belongs to the "political correctness" party so to speak.

The use of "France" is quite different in the french political discourse. Most politicians refer to "La Republique" which comes always first. So they would say : "Vive la Republique et vive la France", that is the Regime first. It is tricky here as what is now as the "French nationalism" is essentially and traditionally based on the adherence to the ideals, mostly expressed by the Republic. So reference to "France" is much more abstract than let say reference to the USA. It is more like when a president say "God bless America".

As i suspected there has been a flood of reactions, not always very smart in the context, and i think that was the Bitch's plan.
Among the most stupid/not really thought about reactions are such as "Marine Le Pen shows clearly what the French far right movement really is"; or by her opponent Macron, " This is a huge political and historical mistake", or UMP "the Front National is very ill-placed to talk about those issues", and of course the best of the best is this one:
"What Jacques Chirac said was very beautiful, what Marine Le Pen said is useless and dangerous."

I could fill a page, but you get the idea.

Of course, the problem is that she did express the opinion of the historical Far Rights which is " Petain protect France, helped save the French Jews, and so on..."
Actually the idea that France, that is the Nation, the French spririt, was "innocent" was the idea of General de Gaulle who always defended the idea that the Vichy Regime was not France, that the real France was in London and never surrendered.

I am not defending this point of view, but that is exactly what was taught at schools from 1945 to 1995.
President Chirac did recognize a responsibility but used the term "the French State" not France...And i agree with that. He declared "
Yes, the criminal folly of the occupier was seconded by some French and by the French State (L'Etat Francais used by Vichy).

He recognized the responsibility of the State in the deportation.
His use of "State" was already a revolution as de Gaulle never recognized the Vichy as the French State.

Nicolas Sarkozy will not change this stance in 2007, and confirmed the guilt of the French State.

We'll have to wait for Francois Hollande, the most unpopular citizen in his country, to pronounce this phrase:
"A crime committed in France by France"

That would be in the last 5 years i guess.

So basically, and i think that was the trap MLP had in mind, by criticizing her, they criticize the official position until Hollande made a step further (too far in my opinion), that is from 1945 to 2012.

Will that work? I hope not.
But not only has she created a buzz, but she will have plenty of arguments to defend her words - and they were quite wisely chosen - and those were the words of every presidents since 1945, but president Hollande whose party is credited with 9% of the vote.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14888
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 Apr 11, 2017 1:22 am

Balsamo wrote:. . . I think her motivation are to break again the "political correctness" almost everyone in France is fed up with.

I don't. I think her motivation is to play on difficult issues and this odd concept in order to instigate and in this case to gain support in the upcoming election.

It's sad that people are fed up with giving a {!#%@} what happens to other people and that that state of mind feeds right-wing populism. I'm not doubting the efficacy of such thrusts and parries - hell, I live in the USA - just registering my own personal dismay.
"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: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:13 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:. . . I think her motivation are to break again the "political correctness" almost everyone in France is fed up with.

I don't. I think her motivation is to play on difficult issues and this odd concept in order to instigate and in this case to gain support in the upcoming election.

It's sad that people are fed up with giving a {!#%@} what happens to other people and that that state of mind feeds right-wing populism. I'm not doubting the efficacy of such thrusts and parries - hell, I live in the USA - just registering my own personal dismay.


I don't see where we disagree when you write that her motivation is to play on difficult issue to gain support in the upcoming election - that is exactly why she did it, i only proposed an explanation of how she intends to make it work for her - which seems a dangerous bet - that is by forcing the other candidates, and Macron essentially, to react - reaction imposed by the "political correctness" as it exists in France (there are no such thing in the USA)

You misunderstood my "odd concept" of "political correctness" as it exists in France and which is very particular.

I never suggested that the French were fed up with tragedies that affect other people, although they are more and more voting for anything but the traditional parties : MLP is one of the choice, the most popular because she represents the older party among this movement. But that a far left candidate can reach the second round shows that they are open to new suggestions when it comes to reject the traditional potential. Macron plays this card too, although he clearly represent the establishment so to speak.
Based on the poll, one can say that the 74% rejects the traditional parties (UMP and PS), among them 30% are ready to give Macron a chance to save the regime, 30% go for the far right and 30% for the far left. Melanchon is 100% for helping the refugees for example.

The French political correctness i was talking about is this phenomenon that has turned the country of "freedom of speech" into the country where prosecution because of what you say is the highest in Europe, that made most tv shows dedicated to debate (there used to be tens, as debates are a national hobby (or was)) disappear from the screens, that forces an author to show a manuscript to a lawyer before publishing, and in this very context that makes people say craps in reaction to such provocation as MLP's.

Here a another couple that came out:
" MLP reconsider 50 years of historiography"
" MLP's speech, is it revisionism?"
etc.
What i mean is that it is the "political correctness" that creates the controversy.
Reading hundreds of comments, the controversy does not sell, as people do not see what is controversial. On comment rightly points out " I do not feel responsible for what happened in Libya", most don't even understand the fuss as basically she is not denying the atrocity of the Raffle, she does not deny that it was done by some French, under the responsibility of the French State, the contrary would have been cases of "negationism".

If that topic comes up during the last debate which should take place right before the vote on the 20th or so, she will have an easy job to point out that there are no such thing as an historiography that has come to the conclusion that FRANCE (instead of the French State, the french administration, etc) is guilty for the deportation. And therefore, to prove that Macron when he says that it is a historical falsehood is wrong.
This is what i suspect she is hoping for.

When i write that people are fed up with the "political correctness", it does not mean they all want to vote for MLP (some do obviously). It just means that they want to be allowed to express themselves freely - as they could before - that they want to be allowed to think outside an imposed morality, that they want "a cat to be named a cat".

PS: I would vote for Jean-Luc Melanchon as far as i am concerned.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14888
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 Apr 12, 2017 11:20 am

Downplaying what happened at Vel d'Hiv - conditions there, who was responsible, etc - and doing so to downplay and obscure what happened in France in 1942 is not about a battle for free speech against political correctness.
"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: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Wed Apr 12, 2017 12:19 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Downplaying what happened at Vel d'Hiv - conditions there, who was responsible, etc - and doing so to downplay and obscure what happened in France in 1942 is not about a battle for free speech against political correctness.



I am not sure what you are talking about or if you have followed the case.
It is not about the event - La Raffle du Vel d'hiv - therefore not about the condition, who was responsible, etc. The whole controversy is about a 40 second speech where MLP said that France could not be reduced to the Regime of Vichy.

MLP is not fighting a battle for free speech, where did you see that?

Let simplify things: Do you feel personally responsible for the deadly US policy in Irak? For the embargo that killed tens if not hundreds of thousands? For the war, the invasion?
If yes, then you might think that America is responsible for those deaths.

But as far as i remember, even when the image of the USA in Europe was at its lowest point, critics have always spoken about the criminal policy of the "Bush administration" or of the "US government". That does not mean that the tragedy in Irak was downplayed.

I can tell today that i will not hold the American people responsible for all the shits the Orange president is doing and will do in the future.

That being said, you are entitled to suspect MLP to want to downplay the event, but you objectively cannot deduct that from what she said, that is from her words only.
It is not like she said that "Hitler never used gas on his population" ;) :lol:
Had the same words been pronounced by someone else, it would not have created such a fuss. My personal opinion is that it should not have, but MLP knew it would...

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14888
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 Apr 12, 2017 10:54 pm

talking past each other as usual, sigh, to quote Le Pen, "Je pense que la France n’est pas responsable du Vél’d’Hiv" but clearly I wrote that Le Pen mentioned/downplayed Vel d'Hiv not as an event in and of itself but to make a larger point. Good grief, nor do I draw a conclusion about Le Pen simply from this statement.
"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: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:53 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:talking past each other as usual, sigh, to quote Le Pen, "Je pense que la France n’est pas responsable du Vél’d’Hiv" but clearly I wrote that Le Pen mentioned/downplayed Vel d'Hiv not as an event in and of itself but to make a larger point. Good grief, nor do I draw a conclusion about Le Pen simply from this statement.


Well sorry but in this quote:
Downplaying what happened at Vel d'Hiv - conditions there, who was responsible, etc - and doing so to downplay and obscure what happened in France in 1942 is not about a battle for free speech against political correctness.


the "Not as an event in and of itself" is lacking. Sincerely, in (mis)understood "conditions there, who was responsible" as related to the event.

As side note, i watched the "crime scene" and it was during an interview and it was clearly the Journalist who came up with this topic. I first thought she pronounced this during one of her meetings. MLP answer lasted 38 seconds. So i was wrong thinking it was one of her strategy (although it would not have been a bad one, but then i have just learned that the last debate between the candidates has been canceled...Who needs a debate anyway when it comes to a presidential election?)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14888
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 Apr 13, 2017 1:18 am

Balsamo wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:talking past each other as usual, sigh, to quote Le Pen, "Je pense que la France n’est pas responsable du Vél’d’Hiv" but clearly I wrote that Le Pen mentioned/downplayed Vel d'Hiv not as an event in and of itself but to make a larger point. Good grief, nor do I draw a conclusion about Le Pen simply from this statement.


Well sorry but in this quote:
Downplaying what happened at Vel d'Hiv - conditions there, who was responsible, etc - and doing so to downplay and obscure what happened in France in 1942 is not about a battle for free speech against political correctness.


the "Not as an event in and of itself" is lacking. Sincerely, in (mis)understood "conditions there, who was responsible" as related to the event.

So you missed this: "doing so to downplay and obscure what happened in France in 1942 is not about a battle for free speech against political correctness."
"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: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:24 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:talking past each other as usual, sigh, to quote Le Pen, "Je pense que la France n’est pas responsable du Vél’d’Hiv" but clearly I wrote that Le Pen mentioned/downplayed Vel d'Hiv not as an event in and of itself but to make a larger point. Good grief, nor do I draw a conclusion about Le Pen simply from this statement.


Well sorry but in this quote:
Downplaying what happened at Vel d'Hiv - conditions there, who was responsible, etc - and doing so to downplay and obscure what happened in France in 1942 is not about a battle for free speech against political correctness.


the "Not as an event in and of itself" is lacking. Sincerely, in (mis)understood "conditions there, who was responsible" as related to the event.

So you missed this: "doing so to downplay and obscure what happened in France in 1942 is not about a battle for free speech against political correctness."


No i did not. But then what do you by that?
Correct me if i am wrong,but i understood this as " MLP downplayed what happened at Vel d'hiv, and doing so to downplay and obscure what happened in France in 1942"
I cannot even guess why you came up with something like this, where do you draw this kind of conclusion from?

The Journalist ask, about the point 97 of the Front national program: " Reinforce the national cohesion by the promotion of the "Roman national" (A national History), and the refusal of further repentence", then the journalist who did badly his homework (but who cares today?), asked MLP
-"So, was President Chirac wrong when he made his speech on the Vel d'hiv...?"**
MLP answered:
- I think that France is not responsible...euh...i think that if there are people responsible, it is those who held the power at that time, it is not THE France..." Then she made her argument that "France" has been mishandled, blablabla...

Note that MLP did not answer yes or no to the question.
** Note also that president Chirac made a repentance speech, but never put the blame on "France", but only recognized the responsibility of the State in what took place. The State that is those who were holding the power, the administration, the police, etc...but not France.
Now i can be sure that she has been sincere, the the National Front under MLP has recognized the past atrocities, especially the Vel d'hiv, that is remembered every day.

The only issue during these 47 seconds is to determine who is responsible for the collaboration policy, and its darkest aspect, was it France or the French State? That is it.

But the level of debate in France in 2017 has reached such a low that the journalist does not even have his facts right. And on the issue MLP few words does not say anything else than what all the president (Chirac and Sarkozy) said. That is about it. Now, given that she is a hard core Nationalist, she draw from those words that there is not need for France to plead guilty every now and then, which is what president Hollande only has done.
I do not agree - and that is the only personal opinion i issue here - with Hollande, but i do agree with the fact that president Chirac and Sarkozy remember that the French State has been guilty, and therefore can manifests repetance...in the name of the State, but not in the name of France.

In case you have not noticed, in all the debates, i disagree with for example Jeff's approach, considering that the vichy regime was the legal representative of the French State. But this opinion is not and has never been very popular in France, i must admit.
The problem of expanding the definition of the French State to France, is that unfortunately you cannot have it both way.
France as a whole cannot be proud of its resistance and guilty of collaboration at the same time. France cannot have saved Jews and sent others to their death at the same time. In order to make a decision, it would be necessary to define clearly who and or what was France. If France is to be reduce to the regime of Petain, then how can de Gaule even pretend to have represented France, if the legal France was in Paris, then de Gaulle was legally sentenced to death for treason, etc.
This is why among the first legislative act of de Gaulle was to deny any legitimate public representation of the Vichy regime, that is the Vichy Regime was denied any legal pretention to have been the government of France, therefore all laws pàssed by the French State (L'Etat Francais) were declared null, way easier than to pass a new law for each law passed during the occupation by the Vichy regime.
This law is still in vigor in France. By this law of 1944, de Gaulle and the Free France were the sole depository of the French legitimacy, of the French government...

So you see how politically complex it can become.

If one now defends the idea that France is guilty, instead of only the french State and the Vichy Regime, then what would become of the foundations of the fifth Republic? Doesn't that give the real legitimacy to Petain, in fine? That nasty logic could go up to a point where some nasty lawyer could oppose that the Marechal was prosecuted on the wrong charges, etc.

And here is the point where i blame the concept that you don't seem to understand within its context of "political correctness". The reactions were all emotional, with not a thought given to the validity of their contents. So stupid as well as it allowed the journalist to get confused between the speech of president chirac in 1996 and the speech of president Hollande in 2012. Again it reached such a level of absence of thoughts that no one even noticed it, or most probably no one dared to point out the mistake, even less the absurdities that followed.

So how to integrate your sentence in this context? i have really no idea.

Note that i am actually in a good mood regarding those elections. Still i am pissed to see those morons keeping committing those same mistake, those futile strategies, which in the end have proven so counterproductive. This bloody public moral has played its part in bringing the FN and MLP to such a level of popularity, which is about twice what her father reached in his days.

The reasons why i am more optimistic, that is less pessimistic, is that not only there has been a Trump effect - Trump having been praised and defended by MLP during his election - which has clearly turned against her.
The other good news, is that there has been a "Bernie's effect" despite the relative silence he was granted in the European media. People - probably thanks to the internet - have discovered another way to get rid of the neo-liberal system they are fed up with, that is through the left if one speaks politically, or through a more humanist way.
Jean-Luc Melanchon has learned much from Bernie, his meeting are astonishing, he gathers the youth, huge crowd, 70.000 in Marseille, he speaks without any notes, while the favorite of the media Macron failed to fill a 3000 seats room! Nevertheless he is presented every day as the winner...kind of a hillary scheme all over again.
I think we are up to a nice upset next week... Polls shows that Melanchon is the most popular political figure with 68%, he even managed to get a majority of good opinion among the "right voters" (53%) while none of the other candidates managed to reach the 50% level. Polls has also showed for the first time, Melanchon would win against MLP with a stunning 63-37! better than all others. Expect a crash of the CAC-40 of at least 20% on the day after the election if he passes. :D

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:58 pm

I need to make a correction to what i wrote above.
I finally found the integral version of president Chirac speech at the Vel d'hiv in 1996.
And he indeed used the term France, actually twice in two very different context.
The part that everyone remembers is the one i quoted: accusing of complicity of crime some french and the french state.
He then described the Raffles.
Much further, on page two of his speech, he added as a comment, this sentence:
" France, Land of the enlightenment and the human rights, Land of asylum and refuge, France, this day, accomplished the irreparable: Breaking its word, it surrendered the ones under its protection to their executioners"


A but further, comes the switch:
"I want to remember that this summer of 1942, which reveals the true face of "collaboration"
Whose racist character, after the anti-Jewish laws of 1940, is no longer in doubt, will,
For many of our compatriots, be the one of the awakening, the point of departure for a vast
resistance movement.
I want to remember all Jewish families hunted down, saved from the brutal hunt
of the occupier and the militia, through the heroic and fraternal actions.


He then praise the Free French who fought at Bir Hakeim under General Koenig (that was two months before the Raffle...to stunningly conclude:
Of course, there are the mistakes committed, there are the faults, there is the collective fault, but there is also France, a certain idea of France, standing straight, generous, loyal to its traditions, its genius. This France has never been at Vichy! She is no longer, since a long time, in Paris. She (FRANCE) is in the Libyan desert, and everywhere the Free French are fighting. She is in London, personified by the General de Gaulle. She is present, one and indivisible, in the hearts of those French, those Righteous Among the Nations., etc...


So this should be the model, i guess. There are just two France: one criminal, and one, although "one and indivisible" which is not concerned by the "mistakes" or the "faults", even by the "collective one"...
There is no contradiction at all, a nice peace of "political correctness" which is intended to please everyone.
So those pleased by the first paragraph are just ignoring the second, and vice versa.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:34 pm

Better to continue the discussion about the French presidential election here, in order not to pollute the Trump's thread.

Statmec:
So another question, which is the flip side of what I asked earlier: is Macron blind to all this? is he a true believer in his "movement"?


He is, and many are, no doubt about that. BLIND, i mean.
Most of them still think it is still possible to make it through a "No pasaran".

Macron has no program so to speak, he is a character chosen to pass a message which is always the same, "things will change, but in the same direction" which is precisely what more and more people do not want.
so basically, the message is "no future without the European Union, but we will reform it" when even the most basic peasant know that the EU can only be reformed on unanimity - and therefore impossible.
Still they all keep saying it, election after election, without any second thought, even when - and everyone can see that - that When Jean Marie Le Pen reached the second round, he scored a little 17.7% and today one can optimistically hope for a 30-35% for her daughter. (disclosure: i fear a 40% + ).

Still the strategy remains the same. Absurd.

There is no real movement behind Macron, and if there is a sort of movement, there is no program, no ideology, no principles, no values (beside the "think spring"), nothing..
It is scarier than that. It is the deliberate destruction of the traditional political parties, the establishment just By-passed them. Not blaming them, the scheme is ideal if from now on there will only be "Their" candidate against the "extremes" (far right being much easier to deal with).

We will see how the legislative elections take place, and how the traditional parties will be treated, how they will act and perform.

Update:
New Polls came out, three days after the first round. Sunday Macron was credited with 64% vs 36% for Le Pen. Since then, everyone but Melanchon and my sister's dogs have screamed and called to vote for Macron - playing the same old record of the Fascist Threat, already played 15 years ago.
Remember that i said that the strategy was ineffective.
Well here are the new Polls : Macron 57.5% and Marine Le Pen 42.5%
Fillon (20%) and Hamon (6%) both called to vote for Macron, despite of that MLP gained 21.5%... (when i say that the French people are sick and tired of "moral obligations" and "political correctness", here is how it translates)

Of course, now all the media and personalities, but my sister's dogs, blame Melanchon...for not having played their silly game.
Although, as far as his base is concerned, it seems to say : Not a vote for MLP... The final results are yet not known, as i suspected, it will be hard and illogic for them to call to vote Macron. You just cannot be against neo-liberalism, against capitalism, against NATO and the EU, and call for the incarnation of what you are fighting.

Now this is becoming scary, because with such a little spread, MLP has a chance to win of people chose not to vote or vote "white" or "null".

To continue

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14888
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 Apr 27, 2017 4:41 pm

I read an analysis that said abstentions this time round could elect Le Pen: if 90% of those telling pollsters they're for Le Pen vote, and 65% of Macron supporters vote, Le Pen wins, in that analysis.

What I've been reading says that Macron has badly bungled the first week of the campaign, with the momentum clearly in Le Pen's favor. It appears from English-language press reports that Mélenchon is ok with a Le Pen victory (no voting guidance, he is to speak tomorrow?). Or as ok with a Le Pen win as with a Macron victory. Also I read that Sarkozy has floated a power-sharing coalition idea with Macron, to exchange legislative support for policy objectives, with no result . . . meanwhile Macron flounders and has his support erode. Let's say he wins 51%-49% . . . or 54%-46% . . . what will that turn out like?
"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
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4162
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

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

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:33 pm

Le Pen has no chance in hell of winning. Macron will get strategic votes from Harmon's people and most of Fillon's people. The only way Le Pen wins is if Melenchon's red army signs the second non-aggression pact with Le Pen's fascists over their shared hatred of globalism. But that probaly won't happen - Melenchon's voters will likely be split on Marcon-Le Pen by about 60/40 for Macron.

I would not lose sleep over this. France does not have a possible avenue for someone to win while dramatically losing the popular vote.

France has fallen to Nazi invasion once. It will not fall again.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5159
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

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

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:35 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:Le Pen has no chance in hell of winning. Macron will get strategic votes from Harmon's people and most of Fillon's people. The only way Le Pen wins is if Melenchon's red army signs the second non-aggression pact with Le Pen's fascists over their shared hatred of globalism. But that probaly won't happen - Melenchon's voters will likely be split on Marcon-Le Pen by about 60/40 for Macron.

I would not lose sleep over this. France does not have a possible avenue for someone to win while dramatically losing the popular vote.

France has fallen to Nazi invasion once. It will not fall again.


Let's not make assumptions before the election. We all thought Clinton had this thing in the bag......and we are close to Trump's 100 days.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4162
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

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

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:44 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:Le Pen has no chance in hell of winning. Macron will get strategic votes from Harmon's people and most of Fillon's people. The only way Le Pen wins is if Melenchon's red army signs the second non-aggression pact with Le Pen's fascists over their shared hatred of globalism. But that probaly won't happen - Melenchon's voters will likely be split on Marcon-Le Pen by about 60/40 for Macron.

I would not lose sleep over this. France does not have a possible avenue for someone to win while dramatically losing the popular vote.

France has fallen to Nazi invasion once. It will not fall again.


Let's not make assumptions before the election. We all thought Clinton had this thing in the bag......and we are close to Trump's 100 days.


Different ballgame. France has a different system entirely. There are no loopholes like the ones that Trump exploited.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14888
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 Apr 27, 2017 6:46 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:I would not lose sleep over this. France does not have a possible avenue for someone to win while dramatically losing the popular vote.

That is not what the scenario I alluded to argued, of course: the model, by physicist and Sciences Po political expert Serge Galam, showed how Le Pen could get to 50.07%. Nate Silver (ugh) says Le Pen's chances are 0%; Eurasia Group (risk consultants) say 30% and that Macron is not a sure bet, I am guessing due to the large numbers of disaffected and angry voters.

But this discussion started in fact not over the question whether Le Pen would win but over whether Mélenchon should take the stance he's taken or try extracting concessions from Macron in order for support . . . to assure a bad defeat for FN. In the volatile French situation, surely it matters if Le Pen loses by 2% vs 12% vs 20%.

There is a day after the voting, and then days after that . . .
"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: 14888
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 Apr 27, 2017 6:48 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:. . . We all thought Clinton had this thing in the bag . . .

Not all of us, all along. Just sayin'.
"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
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5159
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

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

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:12 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:. . . We all thought Clinton had this thing in the bag . . .

Not all of us, all along. Just sayin'.



OK, I'll qualify that by saying the Jeffs X 2 thought Clinton would win.

Better? :D

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14888
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 Apr 27, 2017 7:45 pm

Many days, and weeks, I thought she would of sure, but I had a lot of doubt. A friend reminded me that about 5 days before the election I ran into him - he was walking his dog - and told him Trump would win. But 2 days later, I know for sure, I was thinking Clinton would edge him out. LOL
"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
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5159
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

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

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:52 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Many days, and weeks, I thought she would of sure, but I had a lot of doubt. A friend reminded me that about 5 days before the election I ran into him - he was walking his dog - and told him Trump would win. But 2 days later, I know for sure, I was thinking Clinton would edge him out. LOL


LOL

Panic started to set in at various points...the end of October, the day before the election, the morning of....but I really didn't think the American people, or the American people in the right (wrong) states would buy the circus act of a reality TV star/pussy grabber/twice divorced pin head.

Boy, was I wrong. I severely overestimated the intelligence of the American people. Silly me. Oh, and Trumplings still support him.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4162
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

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

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:41 pm

I overestimated the ability of the American people to feel shocked by his antics.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:57 pm

StatMec:

I read an analysis that said abstentions this time round could elect Le Pen: if 90% of those telling pollsters they're for Le Pen vote, and 65% of Macron supporters vote, Le Pen wins, in that analysis.


Yeah...or how to make a buzz with nothing. For this to work, Marine should start at 42%.
I prefer to count the votes.
I think that MLP could reach 13.000.000 or something.
So Macron should non only keep those who voted for him first round and convince another 5.000.000 to vote for him.
Frankly, should be a piece of cake.
And this is part of the problem. Already in 2002, the participation was low because everyone knew Jean Marie Le Pen had no chance, so abstention was 28.5%. This record could be broken this time and this will indeed be decisive for the % score of MLP.
Those 13.000.000 (which i see as a top for 2017) could represent 36% to 43%, depending on how Macron manage to mobilize.



Statmec

What I've been reading says that Macron has badly bungled the first week of the campaign, with the momentum clearly in Le Pen's favor. It appears from English-language press reports that Mélenchon is ok with a Le Pen victory (no voting guidance, he is to speak tomorrow?). Or as ok with a Le Pen win as with a Macron victory. Also I read that Sarkozy has floated a power-sharing coalition idea with Macron, to exchange legislative support for policy objectives, with no result . . . meanwhile Macron flounders and has his support erode. Let's say he wins 51%-49% . . . or 54%-46% . . . what will that turn out like?


Theoretically, the final score does not change a lot, except that we are talking about the Front National still perceived as a reminiscence of the "dark age" - which is not completely true anymore - and the final number will be symbolic.
What is really important for a president is the legislative elections in June.
If Macron is elected with "only" 54%, it would mean a wrong dynamic.

The current situation in which Macron kind of lost himself, shows the limits of this political experience/experiment.

One of the reason of his success in the first round is that he did not officially belong to any political party. But therefore, the problem is that Macron himself is not really sure who is supporting him, what his base really is.
The Socialist Party tumbled but the results tend to indicate that a majority turned to Melanchon while the center-left went to Macron.
The same goes with the Les Republicains, The center went to Macron, but the core voted fillon (20% is not that bad).

Now that Macron has to declare himself, that is where he stands on the political scene and what will be concretely his program - he is hesitating. His electoral team clearly has bet that being against MLP would be enough to win the election (this is still highly probable). But they did not suspect that it would be so close (relatively speaking, 42.5% would be a failure for any other Party but MLP).
What to do now?
Making a deal with the Republican would make sense, like Sarkozy proposed. But Sarkozy is still very unpopular, Fillon has given up, and there is a new leader (Wauquiez) has hesitated to call to vote Macron (he asked NOT to vote for MLP), because a great part of the traditional right is hostile to the EU as it exists today. They too have the June elections in mind.

For the "Macron experiment" to be conclusive. He needs to win BIG as he needs to compensate his lack of political party by a strong popular legitimacy that would convince representatives to leave their Party to join him. By doing so, the representative will put his political career at risk.
Macron can count on some former Socialist candidate ( but it is far from sure that they will be reelected even under a new coat "En Marche")
But Les Republicains will probably stay under the LR banner.
Melanchon's Party will send candidates everywhere and so will the Front National.
And quite possibly the PS that will still try to exist and send candidates too.

In theory, the French voting system guarantees stability by favoring BIG PARTIES, but it ceases to function if one has results similar to those of the first round with 4 forces around 20%. In case there is more than 2 candidates who qualify for the second round, the 50% +1 is no longer needed to win. And i expect the FN to send hundreds of candidates to the second round. The others forces each with similar strength would be confronted with the "moral obligation" the "No pasaran" dilemma again, just hundreds of times more.
If there is no consensus on who is staying, if Macron's movement fails to strike big in those elections, it could be a mess and a great opportunity for MLP to send representatives. (something that has been prevented since the 1990's)

Young students went on strike today chanting "Neither Le Pen nor Macron, Neither Motherland nor Boss (CEO's)". This attitude could prove to be stronger than expected. This will probably be the choice of many of Melanchon's voters.
And now that MLP has lost her "favorite" status, she is finally making a good campaign (technically i mean). She adopted a new slogan. "Choosing France" vs "choosing globalization" which Macron really is, this time.

Macron will win next week, but if he scores less than 60%, that might influence the June elections whose results could very well created a never seen before situation, that is a Parliament without clear majority, with a strong presence of extremist candidates ( far right / far left), which would make the State unmanageable for the first time in the fifth Republic.

Would follow unprecedented series of "political crisis" that will only profit the "extremes".
2022 will be a duel between hope and despair for sure, the people will have to choose between one of two extremes, as what is left of the traditional political class will die within those 5 years.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14888
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 Apr 28, 2017 12:08 am

Balsamo wrote:His electoral team clearly has bet that being against MLP would be enough to win the election (this is still highly probable).

I wish something like that would have worked in the US.

By the way, I don't see how Le Pen, even if she catches fire, makes up 20 pts in 2 weeks. The "thought experiment" on how Le Pen could win was interesting but only in pointing to weak spots, etc. But my main question, after the question of a coalition, is about the impact/importance of the size of the gap between Macron and Le Pen . . .

Balsamo wrote:But they did not suspect that it would be so close (relatively speaking, 42.5% would be a failure for any other Party but MLP).

Won't 42,5% be a (moral) success for the FN? And help their momentum for the June elections and afterward?

Balsamo wrote:For the "Macron experiment" to be conclusive. He needs to win BIG as he needs to compensate his lack of political party . . .

I agree with you on that, but am keenly aware of the limits of my knowledge about this election . . .

Balsamo wrote:Young students went on strike today chanting "Neither Le Pen nor Macron, Neither Motherland nor Boss (CEO's)". This attitude could prove to be stronger than expected. This will probably be the choice of many of Melanchon's voters.

I read about this and had the same thought.

Balsamo wrote:"choosing globalization" which Macron really is, this time.

On personal grounds, I will give him credit for being honest about this, unlike a certain Democrat in last fall's US election.

Balsamo wrote:Macron will win next week, but if he scores less than 60%, that might influence the June elections whose results could very well created a never seen before situation, that is a Parliament without clear majority, with a strong presence of extremist candidates ( far right / far left), which would make the State unmanageable for the first time in the fifth Republic.

This is what I was partly getting at saying that there is a day after the election . . . and after that, more days . . .
"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: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:21 am

Statmec:

But my main question, after the question of a coalition, is about the impact/importance of the size of the gap between Macron and Le Pen . . .


It will be a measure of the great divide that is breaking up the country.
It will have an influence on the new President legitimacy, on his capacity to gather a team and a majority.
MLP will be a winner if she scores big, because she is alone vs everyone.
Under normal circumstances, the gap has no real importance.
Here this election is more like a referendum on globalization and neo-liberalism, that is how MLP will present it anyway.

Won't 42,5% be a (moral) success for the FN? And help their momentum for the June elections and afterward?


Of course, the dynamic would be on her side for sure. And if she scored that high, that would mean that she would have scored over 50% in many districts, especially in the North /South-Est.
If she makes 40%, that means that the rest of the political actors will have to share the 60% left.
With representatives comes, in France, public money, access to prime media by law, to congress committees, etc. The more she gets, the stronger the Party in the long run, and in 5 years.
That was the principal weakness until now, despite having over 20% of the vote, the Party has only 3 elected representatives at Congress, hence a political dwarf on the political stage. If this change...

On personal grounds, I will give him credit for being honest about this, unlike a certain Democrat in last fall's US election.


It is not like he had a choice, lol.
But yes, it is the only clear message he is carrying, hence the problems he is facing, and will face after the election. Because, basically, 42% of the population are against the "status quo". So he has to defend the project, while promising that he will reform, knowing that the "EU beast" cannot be reformed as it needs the cooperation of every members...so it is doomed from the start.
The only thing that could save the European project would be a international awareness that the road chosen leads to chaos, in other words, a miracle. Or we could dream about a economic boom that would bring prosperity to everyone...hum, well another miracle...

He will win, but like Pyrrhus. What is left of the democracy will win another five years but at the price of the disintegration of the traditional political parties that have been the structure of this democracy. What will democracy oppose to the extremists in five years?

This is what I was partly getting at saying that there is a day after the election . . . and after that, more days . . .


Oh yes...

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4162
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

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

Postby Jeff_36 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:52 am

So we agree that Le Pen is finished? D'accord?

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1360
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

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

Postby Balsamo » Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:25 am

Jeff_36 wrote:So we agree that Le Pen is finished? D'accord?


Finished?
Well i wish it could be that easy...
My stance is that she wins even though she will lose...
except if she gets a beating, let's say 20-25%...not likely...
She is still young and will be there in 5 years. Unfortunately, it is not like in the USA where defeated candidates for presidency tend to disappear.

So, not "d'accord" ;)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 14888
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 Apr 28, 2017 11:39 am

Jeff_36 wrote:So we agree that Le Pen is finished? D'accord?

Exactly not. If she wildly underperforms in the election, maybe. But the other questions are 1) can Macron assemble a governing coalition? 2) can Macron govern a fractured country? c) will Macron's policies feed the extremes, so to speak?

I know I didn't say Le Pen is finished - that's why I started out inquiring as to how to increase Macron's margin - and I don't believe that Balsamo did either, as he has a number of times raised the risks of 2022.
"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: 14888
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 Apr 28, 2017 12:38 pm

Ah, and Balsamo beat me to it :) Balsamo and I do not agree with you that "Le Pen is finished."
"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


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests