As Veteran’s Day approaches and we also commemorate the centennial of the end of the First World War, a question arose in France that goes to the heart of that conflict, its aftermath, and the essence of how and why we honor veterans. As a country who courageously gave much heart and treasure in WWI, in alliance with us, what matters to her on this should matter to us.
Very recently French President Emmanuel Macron had decided, before he backed down Thursday under pressure, to award French Marshal and WWI veteran Philippe Petain a centenary tribute. In WWI Petain tenaciously held the fortress of Verdun against the Germans and was lionized for doing so. His spirit then exemplified the French determination to deny the Germans the victory they were so close to time and again. That war, as this column has already covered, culturally, intellectually, and otherwise changed the very essence of the West. Much of the change was not for the better.
But twenty-two years later, with France at her knees due to the lightening quick and successful Wehrmacht invasion that led within short weeks to French surrender, Petain was appointed by a collaborator government to head up the supplicant Vichy regime. He could have gone into exile like Charles de Gaulle, and like the exasperating French statesman and hero, continued the fight against the Boche from France’s overseas empire. But he chose to stay, capitulate, and serve the Nazi puppet state. He did their bidding by leading a government that rounded up thousands of members of the French Resistance. 75,000 French Jews were sent east to their deaths under his regime. After the war he was tried for treason, convicted, and sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted to life due to his WWI record and he died in prison in 1951.
Macron considered honoring this man, probably to pick up some support on the LePen right. Was he right to do so in the historical context? Was he right to back down? Was he right to back down literally while I was writing this piece, making me rewrite it? Bloody French.
Talleyrand, one of my favorite historical figures, debated the fate of the King of Saxony at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. To Alexander of Russia he said, referencing the supposed “treason” against Europe of the King for allying with Napoleon, “Treason, sire, is a matter of dates.” Talleyrand was reminding them that everyone in the room, including the Czar and himself, had made peace or worked with Napoleon at one time or another. Is there a difference in the WWI Petain and the WWII Petain? Or should the man be looked at as a whole? Has this veteran, who once served his country honorably and with distinction, earned a bit of historical amnesia? Have any who commanded in the field? Rommel? Vlasov?
Or, as some point out, even though he won the Battle of Saratoga, do we Americans honor Benedict Arnold? Even though he fought for an odious cause, should we honor Robert E. Lee and keep up monuments to him and his lieutenants?
All reasonable questions, especially in dealing with the legacy of veterans. There are Americans still alive who think our Vietnam veterans participated in a war of imperialism against Vietnam. Those U.S. citizens are fellow-traveling idiots who should be horsewhipped. And I would, if I could find a horse. However, the other questions legitimately remain.
My take? The Petain honor was a mistaken one. For once, the vox populi was right.
Yes, he fought valiantly in The Great War. But his actions in WWII, unlike Lee in his war, were not those of a soldier. They were those of a cringing butcher. Using a totalitarian state apparatus to force defenseless women and children to their demise is not the act of a Marshal of France. It is not in the spirit of Ney and Foch. Just so I’m clear, Robert E. Lee fought like a gentleman. He couldn’t even bring himself to refer to his former comrades on the other side as “the enemy.” He referred to them as “those people.” Gallant man, honorable soldier, wrong cause.
Not so gallant, Petain.
And as I mentioned earlier, he had options. Other French senior officers like Giraud and Darlan, neither boy scouts, came to the Allied cause. De Gaulle was generally a nobody when he left the crumbling Army on the verge of capitulation and raised the flag of resistance in Africa. It was not abandonment of the Army. It was a redeployment, as he kept on fighting against the Germans. Now, fighting almost alone.
Petain also knew well the France he led into captivity. For all the promise of liberty, equality, and fraternity, France had a xenophobic past once culminating in the cashiering and humiliation of an honorable French Jewish officer, Dreyfus, at the hands of the officer class of the most Jew-hating nation in Europe—at that point much more so than Germany. Dreyfus was later exonerated and restored to rank. But the stain remained on the honor of France. Petain understood the impulse and used it once again to destroy the innocent and subsequently shove civilians towards a gas chamber.
In doing so, he shamefully betrayed his men, the men who had fought under his command at Verdun, and the men who bled and died in the second war. For they fought for something and against something. They fought for the sacred soul of France, now made a slattern by Petain for the Germans. They fought so their families, cities, and farms would not all fall under foreign occupation. And we who served know, at the heart of it, they fought for each other.
They did not fight to see their home become a satrap of one of the most evil bands of brutish killers the world has ever seen. They did not fight to give aid and succor to the enemies of their allies, allies who had just sacrificed their sons for France. They did not fight for base and shameful surrender. Petain was, at final analysis, the man who epitomized these scurrilous acts. He made the decision to do so.
A good man or woman who wears a uniform has a mind and conscience. Petain ignored his.
As veterans realize, if you really screw up you’ll stand in front of the CO. So did Petain. Thank God Macron did not reverse the record and oppose the likely judgment of the ultimate CO, just to isolate a historical event in the personal context and score some political points. The sleight of hand would have erased no shame and given her history, would have been a flagrant disservice to France herself.
This is an issue that resonates this centennial weekend and in any time and place honorable men and women wear the colors of their nation.
