The French loved occupation

No wonder they hate Americans for ending it

May 25, 2008
Paris during Nazi occupation was 'one big romp'

A new book which suggests that the German occupation of France encouraged the sexual liberation of women has shocked a country still struggling to come to terms with its troubled history of collaboration with the Nazis.

Like a recent photographic exhibition showing Parisians enjoying themselves under the occupation, the book's depiction of life in Paris as one big party is at odds with the collective memory of hunger, resistance and fear.

"It is a taboo subject, a story nobody wants to hear," said Patrick Buisson, author of 1940-1945 Années Erotiques ("erotic years"). "It may hurt our national pride, but the reality is that people adapted to occupation."

Many might prefer to forget but, with their husbands in prison camps, numerous women slept not only with German soldiers - the young "blond barbarians" were particularly attractive to French women, says Buisson - but also conducted affairs with anyone else who could help them through financially difficult times: "They gave way to the advances of the boss, to the tradesman they owed money to, their neighbour. In times of rationing, the body is the only renewable, inexhaustible currency."

Cold winters, when coal was in short supply, and a curfew from 11pm to 5am also encouraged sexual activity, says Buisson, with the result that the birth rate shot up in 1942 even though 2m men were locked up in the camps.

The book has stirred painful memories. One French reviewer called it "impertinent" and another accused Buisson of telling only part of the story by focusing on the "beneath the belt" history of the occupation. Le Monde, the bible of the French intellectual elite, chided the author, who is the director of French television's History Channel, for painting life under the occupation as a "gigantic orgy".

People who lived through the occupation found it insulting to suggest that they spent it in bed. "It makes me really angry," said Liliane Schroeder, 88, who risked her life as a member of the resistance and has published her own journal of the occupation. "It's shocking and ridiculous to say life was just a big party," she told The Sunday Times. "We had much better things to do."

Schroeder nevertheless described her life as a messenger in the resistance as a "marvellous time" in which "people got on with life even if they weren't laughing". Young women were useful to the resistance, she said, because "when a young woman and a man sat in a café it did not look as if they were plotting. They looked like lovers".

French sensitivities about the country's wartime record were demonstrated last month when an exhibition of photographs depicting Parisians enjoying life under the Nazis included a notice explaining that the pictures avoided the "reality of occupation and its tragic aspects". The photographs showed well-dressed citizens shopping on the boulevards or strolling in the parks. People crowded into nightclubs. Women in bikinis swam in a pool.

Buisson dedicates a chapter in his book to cinemas, which he describes as hotbeds of erotic activity, particularly when it was cold outside. "At a few francs they were cheaper than a hotel room," he writes, "and, offering the double cover of darkness and anonymity, propitious for all sorts of outpourings."

The French even had sex in the catacombs, the underground ossuary and warren of subterranean tunnels in Paris: war, Buisson argues, acted as an aphrodisiac, stimulating "the survival instinct". He said in an interview: "People needed to prove that they were alive. They did so by making love."

It has been claimed that prostitutes staged the first rebellion against the Nazis by refusing to service the invaders but Buisson called this a myth. The Germans, he claimed, were welcomed into the city's best brothels, a third of which were reserved for officers. Another 100,000 women in Paris became "occasional prostitutes", he said.

Elsewhere, members of the artistic elite drowned their sorrows in debauchery. Simone de Beauvoir, the writer, and Jean-Paul Sartre, the philosopher, were devotees of allnight parties fuelled by alcohol and lust.

"It was only in the course of those nights that I discovered the true meaning of the word party," was how de Beauvoir put it. Sartre was no less enthusiastic: "Never were we as free as under the German occupation."

De Beauvoir wrote about the "quite spontaneous friendliness" of the conquerors: she was as fascinated as any by the German "cult of the body" and their penchant for exercising in nothing but gym shorts.

"In the summer of 1940," wrote Buisson, "France was transformed into one big naturist camp. The Germans seemed to have gathered on French territory only to celebrate an impressive festival of gymnastics." The author said he did not want to make light of a tragic part of French history, but there was a need to correct the "mythical" image of the occupation. "In this horrible period, life continued," he said.

"It is disturbing to know that while the Jews were being deported, the French were making love. But that is the truth."

Now Buisson is at work on a sequel, about how women were punished for sleeping with the enemy. The provisional title is Revenge of the Males.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3998943.ece

The French

way to celebrate Memorial Day,

You couldnt wait one more day couldja?

Give me Iraqis any day

I like the French just fine.

French familes adopt U.S. graves at Normandy.

I should probably ignore your trollery, but I'll point out something you seemed to have missed: the source you cite indicates that people were engaging in more sex because they were trying to deal with the hardships of life under occupation. It was a survival strategy. Plus, pointing out that French women were forced into prostituting themselves to people (including the Germans) due to the hardships of the occupation is hardly something to celebrate.

Where in the material you cited does it say that the French enjoyed the occupation? Do you even read your sources? Try reading what you bolded for a start - "people adapted to occupation," not "people loved occupation."

You're a complete ass for trivializing the hardships endured by the French people to try to make a cheap (and invalid) political point.

Wow, I get to use this again already!!!

A truly pathetic and despicable one that rewarded their invaders.

Nobody forced them. That what makes it so bad!

It's in the article, with leading French intellectuals saying they were never more freer to practice moral license than they were under occupation by Nazi Germany, and it was fucking awesome.

So what? Why do I care? Because these same moral idiots condemn and lecture my country for liberating a fascist tiotalitarian state by force are the same ones revelling in memories of the good life they had bending over to the goddamn Nazis. Because these scum-sucking monsters don't give a damn about human freedom and political self-determination. All they cared about is whether they can get off sexually without consequence and live comfortably materially.

I'm not clear how history is being deployed as an explanatory device here. I mean, if we're bearing the sins of the past - don't we also still have to be pissed at the Germans, Italians, Japanese for fascism? Are contemporary Russians to blame for Stalin? Should we hold today's Australians accountable for injustices perpetuated on indigenous people? Obviously, Americans have slavery .... I mean, right: those all become a problem? And not just a problem - but like a huge fucking issue right? We should all be held accountable for some terrible cluster fuck.

Or maybe are you suggesting we only care about past mistakes for those who currently disagree with American policy? But that's a pretty fucking arbitrary metric...

And do prior good actions continue to matter: after all, the French did usher in modernity with their revolution - doesn't that get them any kind of pass in the grand historical narrative? And what about all those underground French who fought (and died) fighting the Nazis? Or is it preferable to just lump all the French in together?

I mean, seriously, how is this supposed to work?

Can somebody ban this racist?

You aren't supposed to focus on history, you're supposed to be appalled that women became prostitutes (seriously, stockula, did you just say "they weren't forced'? Seriously? You're right, they should have just starved to death instead.) and people used sex to stay warm during the winter when there was no coal. Did I mention that my mother is one of 10 kids, most of whom have birthdays between July and October . . . you know, 9 months AFTER winter?

Sometimes I really wonder if some people should be allowed out without protective headgear.

Obviously, I'm wasting my time with this tripe, but:

No, they aren't. The occupation ended more than 60 years ago, and Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir have both been dead for more than twenty years. The majority of the French "condemning" us now (as though all of France was a single, collective entity) either weren't alive during the occupation, or weren't old enough to be frolicking and fucking with the Nazis.

To say nothing of the fact that a sizable chunk of British citizens are just as vociferously against our actions as the French are... I dare you to suggest they're reveling in memories of the days when they teetered on the edge of Nazi occupation.

Whats the underlying point of this? That because the french are whores they really cant question our occupation of Iraq? really? thats pretty damn dumb.

It must be Troll-mon'-day!

nah. there would have to be a post by uptight AND lslice.

i give this thread an A+

for stupidity.

No where does it say that much of the sex was with the Germans, except in regard to prostitution. You are combining two distinct phenomena: (1) French having sex with other French to rebel against the occupation, and (2) French being forced into prostitution by famine and material shortage.

In regard to the first trend, the author wrote: "People needed to prove that they were alive. They did so by making love."

Famine forced them. If you bothered learning something about the Nazi occupation of France, you would know that over two million French died from starvation, while a large portion of the rest suffered from serious malnutrition. Many French were given the options of starving or forced to make humiliating decisions just to survive.

The article does not suggest that people had other options. In fact, it asserts that the women had no other valuables that they could use in exchange for what they needed. It says, "In times of rationing, the body is the only renewable, inexhaustible currency."

You need to read about the German occupation and its impact on French material life because you clearly have no clue about the topic.

Notice that we get no context for the quotes. We only get one sentence from Beauvoir and Sartre each. They likely meant that they first experienced a sense of community (party) through fraternity in the resistance and that they were free because they were taking control of their destiny in fighting against fascism. Both romanticize the resistance, not the occupation. The out of context quote is intellectually insulting, particularly when both were active in the resistance movement.

If you can provide context for those quotes that show that they have the meaning you wish to present, then you have an argument. As it stands, the reading offered in the review is completely anomalous with the anti-German activities that both carried out during the years of occupation.

Schroeder, for instance, romanticized the resistance as a "marvellous time." She does not romanticize the occupation as being enjoyable. You are confusing the two and I think you are doing it intentionally.

The review does not argue that the French were enjoying memories of a good life under the Nazis. It argues that they survived the occupation by "drown[ing] their sorrows" and that sex was a "survival instinct." The author in fact argues directly against what you claim: he calls it not a "good life," but a "horrible period" and only asserts that "life continued," not that it was better than before.

Actually, the author argues that people engaged in as much sex as they did precisely because they cared about human freedom.

Also, the women weren't living "comfortably materially." They were living through what the review called "financially difficult times."

Read the damn article you posted, troll.

I give you an F for reading comprehension.

Join the US military and spend your time with Iraqis. No one is stopping you.

Please! I got a spot for you right here in Baquoba, you fuck.

Didn't he claim some time ago that he was going to join up? Or was that some other troll?

Gee, my grandparents met in the underground of London during the Blitz. They fell in love and were married before flying back the U.S. (my grandmother was actually the first "war bride" to do so). Before they left the UK, my grandfather helped train the British in the use of long-distance radar, letting them know when German bombers were leaving France on their firebombing missions. If they weren't intercepted by fighters, my grandmother was there on the ground along with many others like her spotting them for the AAA crews. Despite the war, I have to imagine they'd found some time for nookie. The point is that war and occupation create a sense of urgency for people to quickly bond together and enjoy what few pleasures life offers while coping with the fear of not being able to survive. To insinuate that the French were somehow collaborators in the Nazi occupation because it brought them hedonistic liberties is ridiculous. Thats like saying I should be glad that Germany invaded Europe, otherwise they might never have met and I'd never have been born. It was merely a circumstance of the time, one that required people to adjust their lifestyles in order to survive.

I think it is akin to "gallows humor" in concentration camps. People have repeatedly noted the prevalence of humor among Jews in concentration camps as a coping or survival strategy. In times of tragedy, people need something joyous in their lives if they want hope to continue. In some cases, humor fills that void. In others, sex does.

The prevalence of this survival instinct does not belittle the horror of their condition. Instead, it affirms their continued connection to human dignity.

The French are a race? And if they are, I am racist for pointing out how enlightened and superior they are?