Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2019-20/Evidence of Vichy France after World War Two

Introduction

From 1940 to 1945, the French State committed to a collaboration with Germany under the Vichy-Regime which lead to a division of beliefs in society in the post-war period. There was a lack of ‘official truth’ in France during that somber period as a result of the privatization of the main sources of evidence, such as official archives. This paper aims to study evidence used to shape the truth in that time, and how interdisciplinary research helped set the collective memory of the French people.

Construction of the collective memory

To unify its post-war divided country, the French government constructed a new collective memory. One of their methods was to restructure the geographical evidence of the war. As De Gaulle led the government, he proliferated the myth of the Résistancialisme and thus, funded several museums and memorials dedicated to the resistance and deportation during the WW2. However, official museums appeared later in history as a result of the founding of the an official branch of the government which managed the construction of memorial sites. Before that only a few small and private ones where disseminated across the country. The territorial distribution of these museums is interesting as most of them are settled in the former Vichy area which collaborated the most during the war.

The "Les Lieux de Mémoire" have shaped the french landscape and urbanism. Plaques, streets renamed after soldiers, memorials, among other symbols were built throughout the country and significant places of the resistance where actively highlighted. These evidence of the glorification of war heroes were geographically surrounding the people. Hence, it strongly influenced their psychology and reconstructed their memories of the conflict. Geographical evidence of the jewish memory (i.e. memorials, museums, etc.) arose several decades later, as the government and the country faced their role in the shoah. The first proper important museums dedicated to the jewish memory were opened in the 1990s and many were only inaugurated in the beginning of the 21st century. The role of museums and all other "lieux de mémoires" illustrates the government's aim to conceive a collective memory, leaving out sometimes the dark sides of their history.

Museums are also used as a pedagogical tool. Evidence-based education uses evidence to identify starting points for teaching and learning. Information of past experiences from teachers are points used as evidence to establish academic curriculums.

Duty of remembrance designates a moral obligation to commemorate a tragic historical event to prevent its reproduction. Politics impact what evidence is taken into consideration to expand throughout education.

In the case study, duty of remembrance influences the evidence French education is based on. Consequently, pedagogy allows scholars to acquire constructed memory thus considered as an 'official truth'.

Law and justice, presumed as a moral concept within judiciary, approach evidence epistemologically. Validity and justification as well as truth are crucial elements when considering evidence in a legal sense. However, approaches to evidence in justice and the law vary distinctively with respect to different legislatures. Even if there is no consensus concerning its definition, evidence in a legal sense has to be viewed as an independent concept. It is primarily seen as a means in the process of proving a claim or accusation to be true or false. When referring to evidence in a court case, this is the most common meaning. In this particular sense evidence can be oral in the form of testimonies, visual as in documents or physical with regard to objects. Evidence in the law has to be factual and valid.

Under the rule of the Vichy-Regime, France’s legislation changed drastically. Whilst collaborating with Germany, France’s defeat was mainly believed to be the fault of Jews and foreigners which prompted several anti-Semitic statues and xenophobic laws to be imposed. These statues led to the deportation and mass-murder of many French Jews as they were being denaturalized as citizens. Proving the Vichy-Regime’s complicity with Germany after the war was deemed difficult as there was a lack of legal evidence. The first time France admitted to being partially at fault for deportations and the genocide of WW2 was 1995 by then president Chirac. This period of failed recognition of France's fault was crucial in shaping the collective memory, as the lack of evidence meant that living in denial was easy. Despite Vichy France’s undeniable antisemitism, they did not actively want to aid the Germans in their crimes against French Jews. Regardless, the issue itself was that they discriminated against a minority and thus singled them out, which consequently enabled the Germans even further.

Construction of the individual memory

Testimonies found in literature, art and documentaries are considered as some of the most controversial pieces of evidence. After WW2, testimonies and personal pieces played a crucial role in forging a collective truth and giving a voice to victims of the collaboration. Because it was based on deeply personal experiences, artwork from this period became persuasive and forceful evidence. Art, literature and film making from this period all approach evidence in a similar manner, namely by looking at the human experience and trying to convey their reality and emotions. However, memories are subjective and can be hard to deem viable in other disciplines, such as justice and sciences. This leads to them being less respected in terms of classifying evidence. During psychological resilience, expressing lived phenomena through art allows to uncover the truthful events. This resulted in the creation of many pieces of evidence such as books, films, paintings, etc. For example, a long investigation consisting of survivors describing their different coping processes was conducted. Moreover, these documentaries were often censored by the government. The movie "The Sorrow and the Pity” by Marcel Ophuls which described the life of the French during the occupation and showed that they were very few to resist, for instance, was censored until 1981.

Phenomenology uses qualitative research methodologies concerning experimental psychology and the experience of the French people through memory. It aims to enlighten how people understand and comprehend phenomena and lived experiences. Phenomenological methods include oral history, diary methods and qualitative interviews paying particular attention to individuality. Oral history allows to subjectively and realistically describe an event as lived by an individual for instance, whereas interviews supply information on the perception on concepts such as forgiveness and reconciliation. The evidence provided by phenomenology is subjective. These methods are critiqued for their lack of quantitative research methods resulting in a low generalizability.

Conclusion

Regardless of the Vichy-Regime’s collaboration with the National Socialist Germany and thus its liability for many crimes, deportations and murders, committed during that period, it seemed rather difficult to find evidence of any misconduct. Interdisciplinary work, encompassing evidence approached by law, arts and education among others, the truth was finally established and malpractice during the collaboration was acknowledged. This case study illustrates the value of interdisciplinary methods. Indeed, there is an obligation to understand complex problems and gain adequate understanding of issues, often englobing different disciplines. The importance of variability in approaches to knowledge, especially when dealing with such a delicate situation is considerable in terms of taking into account all aspects of the victims thus in finding an adequate and more truthful response.