"A professional historian, university professor, published a history of the Resistance (1) which seems highly questionable to me in his conclusion. Nayant no dhistorien training and those who have never done research on the period in which Olivier Wieviorka is the specialist, my judgments do not claim to scientificity One notes, however, as to the historical accuracy. Renouvin Jacques is presented on page 85 as a "young student" who "also got free corps that intervened against pharmacies collaboration" Born. in 1905, my father, a lawyer before the war was 35 years old in 1940. I hope to quOlivier Wieviorka proofread more carefully its other records and I trust his colleagues to say what it is.
As for me, this is the political point of view I am challenging political bias expressed by Olivier Wieviorka in some pages of his book, and especially in its conclusion.
Biases? The great historian récriera. Jobserve that in his account of resistance constantly is deprived of its capital while the editor presents him as "a recognized expert in the Resistance and World War II." We had quOlivier Wieviorka has serious reason to neglect the common rule. In fact, his conclusion is an attempt to reduce a minima which seffectue in three stages.
- First, reducing the role of Free France. Contrary to what the Gaullists "clamored" at the end of the war, writes Olivier Wieviorka, it is not true that "the internal resistance developed only thanks to the impulse that France had given him free." This would be a "partisan vision." And further that this statement sounds like a contradiction to General de Gaulle, "resistance is indeed a phenomenon from civil society that replied only partially to an external pulse." This echoes the conventional method which consists in inventing a legend to better destroy dévidences suddenly that no one has never thought of denying. In the call, General de Gaulle described the spontaneous way in which the Resistance began his "ardent and secret life" and emphasizes that "the first acts of resistance came from the military." That allows revoke the dubious concept of civil society: in 1940, those who decide to fight the Germans are French people who belong to the menu as well as civil and military eg Jean Moulin, prefect dEure-et-Loire 1940.
- Second, the reduction of the military role of the Resistance. Certainly, wrote Olivier Wieviorka, the Resistance has helped to influence and mobilize French society, but "his military success appears less striking contrast." The assertion is all the more astonishing as historian then spoke very classically the military role of the Resistance: the role of FFI in Brittany, Paris insurrection, rapid advance of allied troops through the actions of the partisan groups. No one could sattendre that the Resistance releases by its own strength the country: its success was to have prepared and led the insurrection which delayed national maneuvering of the enemy and who accompanied or advanced the progress of Allied troops (2). So why belittle military action which was, to the west, the largest of any occupied LEUROPE? It is quite possible quOlivier Wieviorka expresses in its own way the desire of every part of the left: away with what is called "French the exception", the return to a common European measure, a modesty that would be the test of proper behavior, politically correct.
-Third, Reducing the role of the National Council of the Resistance of the program: "If France began its reconstruction based on radically new bases, writes Olivier Wieviorka, emblematic reforms were largely inspired by the solutions outlined in the 1930 and the CNR program quun played small role in the New Deal that structured the Thirty Glorious ". What distinguishes the CNR program planning and other "solutions outlined" before the war, this is the consistency of the measures announced in the text of 15 March 1944: planning, nationalization, social security, wage policy, security lemploi
Sil is true that all the CNR program has not been implemented, the measures taken in 1945 and 1946 were so large dune that France has benefited until the mid eighties of the progress made thanks to flexible planning and public enterprises . And we continue to benefit from Social Security, despite the regression measures that have been adopted by various governments.
Especially, how to ignore the CNR program largely inspired the Preamble of the 1946 Constitution which is part of our block constitutionality and is the general philosophy of this quOlivier Wieviorka called "New Deal". It would be fairer dévoquer the Welfare State, socialist and democratic effectively the state, which sest built in response to the 1929 crisis and in response to totalitarianism (3).
Jen just the last sentences of the conclusion Dolivier Wieviorka: "More than by its program, the resistance survives by these shining examples, that they sappellent Claude Bourdet, Jean Moulin and Pierre Brossolette []. But these men and women live mainly by the trace that they have bequeathed us, in our hearts and in our consciences, because they teach by the power of the example, high but painful requirements of citizenship. " As this is beautiful! Unfortunately, these well-licked lines reveal intend densemble: lexemplarité dindividus heroic rejects the background to the political project of the Resistance. Yet it is because General de Gaulle was not only a military leader that France was recognized among the victorious nations and this is because the resistance is thought to be a revolutionary movement that LOEUVRE accomplished Liberation broke with the old economic world social.
The worst in this conclusion is the last word: citizenship. Of course, the "painful but high requirements" of that citizenship form a superb drape that beautifies lhéroïsme heroes. But jattendais another word: patriotism. These citizens were resistant dune national community members and what united them beyond all differences and differences cétait one and the same love of country. Citizenship in the text Dolivier Wieviorka, clears patriotism; suddenly the Resistance, one of the most humble like that of the greatest actors of the tragedy becomes incomprehensible.
This will deffacement is clearly explained on page 134, to the help of a British historian who wrote that patriotism Resisters can not be invoked because the maréchalistes sen also demanded. It would therefore suffice quun word justice, freedom, brotherhood is retrieved, manipulated, soiled by any propaganda quon can no longer use it appropriately? This wretched sophistry allows Olivier Wieviorka daffirmer that "in summary, other factors that love of country conditionnèrent the commitment" while historian writes on page 207 that "patriotism cemented nen no less a consensus that united all the ViaMichelin opponents, communists included" .
Olivier Wieviorka can therefore deny that he denies but the last word is still one of denial.
- See more at: [...]
