Eleven Days in August

by Matthew Cobb

  74 Pasteur Vallery-Radot (1966), p. 290.

  75 Debû-Bridel (1978), pp. 188–9.

  76 Courtin (1994), p. 47.

  77 BAM VV, 26.8, 27.8. In his entry for 26 August, Veau suggests that de Gaulle was also present. Given de Gaulle’s attitude towards the secretary-generals the next day (see chapter 18), this seems very unlikely. In his own, brief, account, Pasteur Vallery-Radot makes no mention of de Gaulle’s presence (Pasteur Vallery-Radot, 1966, p. 290). Veau based his account on his conversation with Pasteur Vallery-Radot’s wife, Jacqueline.

  78 For the context and implications, see Novick (1968). For an interesting discussion over how to translate the term, inserted into a thriller about the period, see Elkins (2002), p. 189.

  79 All details from AN 72AJ/247/I/2.

  80 Brasillach (1955), pp. 291–4.

  81 Berlière & Liaigre (2012), pp. 155–6 & 314–315.

  82 AN 72AJ/62/IV/2, p. 61. A similar story is told by the soldier’s mother, Madame Godfroy, AN 72AJ/62/IV/2, p. 65.

  83 After Action Report, p. 43.

  84 All details from B-308, p. 164.

  85 B-728, p. 11.

  86 B-729, pp. 15–22.

  87 B-546, p. 4.

  88 Fournier & Eymard (2010), p. 153.

  89 Fournier & Eymard (2010), pp. 154–5.

  90 Jauffret (1994).

  91 B-176, pp. 5–6.

  92 AN 72AJ/62/IV/2, p. 190.

  93 See the 1946 report by Louis Marcou of Turma-Vengeance, BDIC FΔ rés 844/03/9, section 9.1.

  94 The order to leave for Oissery – initially to take effect at 05:30 on 25 August – is reproduced in Cumont (1991), p. 118.

  95 OSS War Diary, 3:768–82.

  96 For a detailed, but not particularly clear, account of the various reasons that might explain the delay, and an attempt to outline the chronology, see Cumont (1991). For an even more confusing account, see BDIC FΔ rés 844/03/9. Marcou suggests that the group gathered to receive parachuted British tanks (sections 9.1 and 9.4). This seems unlikely.

  97 Cumont (1991), pp. 125–8. See also OSS War Diary, 3:768–82.

  98 OSS War Diary, vol 3:768–82 contains the Team AUBREY report. A summary of this report, together with a map and some speculation about the German forces involved, can be found in Lewis (1991), pp. 22–5. In his personal report, Marchant states that the battle took place on 27 August (p. 776); Hooker gives no date, and is unclear (p. 780). At the 1946 Congress of the Vengeance movement that Hildevert belonged to, the date was given as 27 August (see Actes du Congrès de Vengeance, 25 May 1946, chatran.vengeance.free.fr [accessed July 2012]). The obituary of SPIRITUALIST’s radio operator, Henry Diacono, also stated that the date was 27 August (Daily Telegraph 23 August 2010). However, there is no doubt that the battle took place on 26 August. Furthermore, the major road running past the site of the beet processing plant is called the rue du 26 Août 1944, and the same date is given on the war memorials marking the battle. Gilles Primout’s excellent website contains a good summary of events (www.liberation-de-paris.gilles-primout.fr/eoissery.htm [accessed July 2012]), and includes a long list of those who were killed in the fighting or died in deportation, and the names of those few who survived, much of it taken from Cumont (1991). Captain Marchant was killed in April 1945, on an Intelligence Corps operation in the Far East, when his plane crashed on takeoff at Calcutta. He was awarded the Military Cross posthumously (NA WO 373/98). Sergeant Hooker survived the war; he died in Suffolk in June 1988, aged sixty-four (Lewis, 1991, p. 25). Hooker’s SOE personnel file can be found at NA HS 9/739/6.

  99 For details of Yves Goussard, see www.memoresist.org [accessed July 2012]. In 2009, a school in Martinique was named after Yves Goussard. Yves died at the beginning of March 1945, like Anne Frank.

  100 Houssin (2004), p. 234.

  101 See chapter 16 and Fournier & Eymard (2010), p. 156.

  102 For details of the dead at the Bichat hospital, see Hazard (1998), p. 397.

  103 Auroy (2008), p. 339.

  104 Tuffrau (2002), pp. 116–117.

  105 de Saint Pierre (1945), p. 130.

  106 Vilain (1945), p. 26.

  107 Massu (1969), p. 156.

  108 AN 72AJ/62/III/4, p. 53. One of the few photographs of the destruction taken that night shows Notre Dame silhouetted against the flames from the Halle aux Vins, just the other side of the river. See Yank 17 September 1944.

  109 Bourget (1984), p. 390. For a list of the sites that were hit, and photographs of the damage caused, see Fournier & Eymard (2010), pp. 157–60.

  110 AN 72AJ/62/IV/1, p. 104.

  111 AN 72AJ/61/II/1, p. 4.

  112 Dreyfus & Gensburger (2003), p. 261.

  CHAPTER 18

  1 Lankford (1991), pp. 180–1.

  2 See chapter 10. For photographs showing the state of Le Bourget, see Fournier & Eymard (2010), pp. 194–7.

  3 B-176, pp. 7–8.

  4 de Boissieu (1981), p. 260.

  5 Fournier & Eymard (2010), pp. 194–5.

  6 de Saint-Pierre (1945), pp. 138–9.

  7 Model & Bradley (1991), p. 274.

  8 ETHINT 30, p. 7.

  9 Boegner (1992), p. 314; Cazaux (1975), pp. 232 and 235. Bourget claims that after 3 October Field Marshal Jodl banned attacks on Paris in these terms: ‘for political reasons, all attacks on Paris by V2 weapons are suspended’ (Bourget, 1984, p. 494, note). Bourget gives no source for this quote.

  10 Cazaux (1975), p. 315.

  11 Eisenhower (1948), p. 326. See also note 12. There is no mention of this conversation in de Gaulle’s war memoirs, which were written eight years after Eisenhower’s; indeed, de Gaulle makes no mention of the US march through Paris at all. However, the Americans were clearly not unduly worried about de Gaulle’s authority: the day before the march, 28 August, Gerow formally handed control of Paris over to General Koenig, something he would hardly have done had the Americans had any doubts about the ability of the Free French to control the city. Koenig brushed aside the gesture, rightly pointing out that the city had been under French administration since the moment of liberation (Blumenson, 1961, p. 625).

  12 Bourget (1984), p. 402.

  13 AN 72AJ/61/I/14, p. 8. The march may have produced a different effect in Germany – US newsreel footage of the parade was shown there to indicate that Paris was now under a brutal American occupation (Lindeperg, 1993, p. 139, n. 1).

  14 Fonde (1969), pp. 114–115. According to the commentary on the DVD D-Day to Berlin (1998), the podium consisted of an upturned Bailey Bridge, covered in drapes.

  15 de Gaulle (1956), p. 317. For an examination of whether the situation in France corresponded to the Trotskyist notion of ‘dual power’, as suggested by OSS agent Crane Brinton, see Cobb (2009a), p. 385, n. 32.

  16 Courtin (1994), p. 48.

  17 Hostache (1958), p. 451. In late August, there was still no sign of any of the ministers from Algiers turning up in the newly liberated capital. De Gaulle sent a furious message to Algiers asking why the ministers had not arrived or even communicated with him since he left Algiers over a week earlier (de Gaulle, 1983, pp. 299–300). The Free French leader was now experiencing the isolation and lack of communication that Parodi had suffered for so long. In fact, just as the message was sent, the ministers were leaving Algiers on the Jeanne d’Arc. They arrived at Cherbourg on 1 September, and finally got to Paris in the afternoon of Saturday 2 September (Bourget, 1984, p. 415).

  18 For the full text of Leclerc’s letter see de Gaulle (1956), pp. 710–711.

  19 de Gaulle (1983), pp. 301–302; Villon (1984), pp. 117–118.

  20 For the full text of Leclerc’s letter see de Gaulle (1956), pp. 710–711.

  21 Bourget (1984), pp. 418–419; Calvès (1984), pp. 113–114; Riffaud (1994), pp. 143–6; Ouzoulias (1972), pp. 458–62.

  22 de Gaulle (1970), p. 441.

  23 de Gaulle (1970), p. 442. This alarmed even people who should have been sympathetic to de Gaulle, such as banker Léonard Rist. The
sudden arrival of the ‘Algerians’ with their ‘ready-made plans’ rankled with those who had been living and fighting inside France. Léonard wrote to his brother: ‘Those “brave people” the General mentioned in his broadcast have got their own ideas about what should be done, and those ideas aren’t any sillier than those of Georges Boris . . . The struggle is now out in the open and the France of the interior feels ignored by the France of Algiers . . . We will soon know if de Gaulle is the symbol we thought he was or if he thinks he is some kind of Messiah.’ Rist (1983), p. 435, n. 39.

  24 Liebling (1944), pp. 44–5.

  25 Penrose (2005), pp. 69–71. Miller continued: ‘Most were pleased and surprised that the Parisians seemed so beautifully dressed and amiable instead of lean and hungry and sour. As a matter of fact a lot of people were lean and hungry but the sour ones had probably stayed at home and the others were nourished on dreams and stimulated by the adrenalin of joy.’

  26 AN 72AJ/61/I/14, p. 9.

  27 Penrose (2005), p. 69.

  28 Auroy (2008), p. 348.

  29 Groult & Groult (1965), p. 309.

  30 Groult & Groult (1965), p. 319.

  31 Groult & Groult (1965), p. 321. Rudi eventually asked Benoîte to marry him; she turned him down. In 1945 she married a French medical student, who died a few months later.

  32 Bood (1974), p. 341.

  33 For example John Groth visited Picasso on 27 August. Groth asked Picasso if he had any message for American artists: ‘He hesitated and seemed embarrassed as he walked up and down for a moment while we all waited on his words.’ ‘Tell them,’ he said finally, ‘to work hard – like me.’ (Groth, 1945, p. 11.) One visitor was photographer Private Francis Lee, who took some excellent photographs of Picasso, including one of the artist with The Triumph of Pan (Barr, 1945, p. 9). Lee was a pacifist and an artist who initially wanted to be a conscientious objector, but enlisted as an army cameraman. His unit was involved in D-Day, during which he took some memorable film. In 1976 Lee made a short documentary of footage he had shot during the war, including his visit to Picasso: World War II and Me.

  34 Brassai (1999), p. 205. The full quote reads in translation: ‘Paris was liberated, but I was and still am under siege. Visitors come every day in packs. Again yesterday, there was a huge crowd here. People behave as if I had nothing better to do.’ This conversation took place on 12 May 1945.

  35 Penrose (2005), p. 73. Miller writes of a series of ‘exquisite portraits of an imaginary FFI. The face is exactly that of all the rifle-slinging boys in the street – gentle and ferocious – young but wary and wise, poetic and buoyant. Scarcely bearded but with warm eyes, be he university student or “chasseur du café” he is proud and equal and free. He has tasted the blood of the enemy, in private duel and guerilla warfare, and now he awaits joining the real Army to satisfy his appetite’ (pp. 73–4). Zervos (1963) pp. 20–1 reproduces four black-and-white portraits of a teenage boy, three in profile, painted on 13–15 August (before the FFI appeared on the streets), and one face on, painted on 31 August. A photograph of Picasso in his studio by Miller shows two of these portraits in the lower part of the image. One of the 13–15 August paintings is in the Art Institute of Chicago: www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/158479?search_id=5 [accessed July 2012].

  36 Pudney (1944a), p. 182.

  37 Pudney (1944a), p. 183.

  38 Bourget (1984), p. 502; Penrose (1962), p. 317. For a photograph of the exhibition, see Barr (1945), p. 7.

  39 For the best account of this period in the history of Paris, see Beevor & Cooper (2004).

  40 Cazaux (1975), p. 299.

  41 Cazaux (1975), pp. 290 and 349. Five of the dailies still survive – Le Figaro, France-Soir (previously known as Défense de la France), L’Humanité, Le Monde and Le Parisien.

  42 BAM VV, 2.9.

  43 Auroy (2008), pp. 343–4.

  44 Cazaux (1975), p. 258.

  45 de Saint-Pierre (1945), pp. 144–6.

  46 Bourget (1984), p. 473.

  47 Cazaux (1975), p. 304.

  48 Auroy (2008), pp. 348–9.

  49 Tuffrau (2002), pp. 117–118.

  50 de Saint-Pierre (1945), p. 141.

  51 Rist (1983), p. 433. Charles was the father of banker Léonard Rist.

  52 For contrasting views of this period, see Novick (1968), Aron (1967 and 1969) and Vergez-Chaignon (2010). Before the liberation, the Free French had tried to find out what the public thought about punishing collaborators. In July, Yves Morandat, one of Parodi’s aides, sent Algiers the results of an opinion poll that the Free French Delegation in Paris had carried out through a network of agents, who obliquely questioned around 500 people. This group was known as the Services de Sondages et Statistiques (SSS). For details of how they carried out their polls, see AN 72AJ/71/VI/2a, pp. 3–5. Examples of the raw responses can be found at AN 72AJ/71/VI/2a, pp. 40–56, and examples of SSS reports, including detailed breakdowns of the answers according to social group, at AN 72AJ/71/VI/2b. On this occasion, nearly one third of respondents were in favour of allowing popular hatred of collaborationists to go ahead, unbridled. Similarly, 30 per cent thought that Pétain merited a death sentence (about the same number disagreed), while 65 per cent thought that Laval should die for his betrayal, against 15 per cent who disagreed. Finally, when asked whether de Gaulle had been right in his handling of the Allies, 77 per cent of those questioned were positive, while 11 per cent did not care and 12 per cent thought he had been maladroit (AN 72AJ/235/II/170–3).

  53 Bourget (1984), pp. 433 and 451.

  54 Bourdrel (1988).

  55 A photograph of the collaborationist prisoners in the Vel’ d’Hiv’ was printed in Babelay (1945). Much later it was claimed to show the round-up of Jews in 1942; see Bourget (1984), pp. 437–8.

  56 Bourget (1984), p. 436; Taittinger (1948), p. 244.

  57 Bourget (1984), p. 439.

  58 Taittinger (1948), p. 256.

  59 Boegner (1992), p. 305; Cazaux (1975), p. 243.

  60 Bourget (1984), pp. 442–3.

  61 Bourget (1984), p. 433.

  62 Cazaux (1975), p. 248. The photograph is reproduced in Bourget (1979), pp. 162–3; of forty-five men, only five were unidentified.

  63 Bourget (1984), p. 456.

  64 Brasillach (1955), pp. 295–303.

  65 For a detailed description of the trial, see Kaplan (2000). For a reproduction of the letter to de Gaulle pleading for clemency, signed by Paul Valéry, François Mauriac, Louis de Broglie and others, see Piketty (2011), p. 175. For a discussion of the issue, see Winock (1994).

  66 Buton (1994), p. 391.

  67 Pisani provides a dramatic eye-witness account of the sordid events (Pisani, 1974, pp. 11–15).

  68 Vergez-Chaignon (2010).

  69 Bourget (1984), p. 468.

  70 Berlière & Liaigre (2007), pp. 334–7.

  71 This did not go unnoticed by the press – in particular the communist newspapers – who organised campaigns against these men (Berlière, 1996, p. 76, n. 3). For the general context of the police during the occupation, see Berlière (2001). Intriguingly, a substantial portion of the files from the Brigades Spéciales allegedly disappeared from the Préfecture during the insurrection. Some of these allegedly related to interrogations and signed confessions by some communists. Berlière & Liaigre (2007) suggest that these documents provided the leadership of the Communist Party with weapons in its post-war internal struggles (pp. 319–23).

  72 Virgili (2000).

  73 Tuffrau (2002), pp. 120–1.

  74 AN 72AJ/62/IV/1, p. 88.

  75 AN 72AJ/62/IV/1, pp. 97–103. The rumours about the headmaster persisted for days afterwards, and when he attempted to find out which FFI group had been involved in arresting him, there was no trace of them. For a discussion of the role of rumour in this incident, see Virgili (2000), p. 196. The FFI group in charge of this area was the Saint-Just company of Madeline Riffaud and André Calvès. The Saint-Just company had no records of any such raid,
and neither Riffaud (1994) nor Calvès (1984) mentions any of the FFIers named by the two teachers.

  76 Bourget (1984), p. 435. For the fullest treatment of the Institut Dentaire, see the chilling account by Berlière & Liaigre (2012). They point out that there is no evidence that Fabien ever visited the Institut (p. 144).

  77 There were unofficial ‘prisons’ on the rue Beaubourg, at Vitry-sur-Seine and Maisons-Alfort; see Berlière & Liaigre (2012), pp. 358–63.

  78 Bourget (1984), p. 464 gives the date as 26 August. Berlière & Liaigre (2012) show that Madame Albertini was arrested on 25 August (p. 158). Her arrest was revealed at the trial of Georges Albertini, who in December 1944 was tried for treason and condemned to the relatively light sentence of five years’ hard labour (Vergez-Chaignon, 2010, p. 391). Albertini was arrested on 25 September (Lévy, 1992, p. 21).

  79 Berlière & Liaigre (2012), p. 156. For a first-hand account of life inside the Institut Dentaire, see the memoir by collaborationist politician René Chateau, published under the pseudonym of Jean-Pierre Abel (Abel, 1947).

  80 Berlière & Liaigre (2012), p. 280.

  81 Berlière & Liaigre (2012), p. 173.

  82 Berlière & Liaigre (2012), p. 188.

  83 Berlière & Liaigre (2012), pp. 292–3. I have been unable to discover if René Sentuc was related to CGT leader Maurice Sentuc, a.k.a. ‘Véry’ (see chapter 3).

  84 Denis (1963), p. 137.

  85 Barcia (2003), p. 80. Two of Bucholz’s comrades were also kidnapped and beaten by Communist Party members at this time. Barcia, a.k.a. ‘Hardy’, was a young man who was close to the Communist Party, but was also influenced by Bucholz, who was a member of the tiny group led by David Korner (‘Barta’). The shock of Bucholz’s assassination led Barcia to join the Barta group; he went on to found and lead Lutte Ouvrière, which from the 1970s onwards became well known in France through its presidential candidate, Arlette Laguiller.