Reading Time: 284 minutes

CHAPTER IV THE BETRAYAL OF FRANCE

THE inter-war period. The Federation nationale catholique wants to restore France’s “spiritual values”. The cult of dictators and preparation for the defeat. — The work of the”Fifth Column”. — Gustave Herve writes in 1935:”It is Petain we need”. — A study of Philippe Petain. The puppet Marshall of the Vatican. — After Montoire’s interview. La Croix writes:”We have many sins to atone for. . . the time has come to do so with tears and with blood . . .”. — The Episcopate enthusiastically supports the regime arising from defeat. Anthology of clerical collaboration. — Cardinal Baudrillart, pioneer of the Franco-German entente and Recruiter No. 1 of the Legion des Volontaires fran^ais (L.V.F.). — After the Liberation, the Church of France is purged: out of thirty bishops, only three are recalled to Rome. — In 1936, Canon Coube had inside information:”Saint Theresa”and the”just and holy”wars. — No peace for the impious. — Non est pax impiis.

HUMILIATED though it may have been by its defeat—an undeserved defeat—the people of France resisted the invader. Alongside its allies or in the Resistance, they heroically fought him and, on V-day, drove him from their frontiers.

One man there was who, during these years of woe, symbolized in the eyes of the world the true spirit of his country. General Charles de Gaulle refused to accept defeat and, rallying together the scattered patriots, rose up as a true saviour of France.

But what is to be said of those who held out their hand to the enemy? Of those eminent personalities who were weak enough to succumb to the pernicious influence of Rome?

To understand how such surrender was possible, it is necessary first to recall the political atmosphere m France during the inter-war years. Encouraged, exalted even, by the spectacular success of the dictators in Italy and beyond the Rhine, the Reaction was burning to follow their example. The Vatican, of course, was strongly supporting this, under guise of restoring those famous”spiritual values”which go so well with the basest temporal interests.

Thus the “Federation Nationale Catholique” came into being, destined to restore France to the bosom of the Church by extirpating her”heresies”: religious tolerance, the desire for liberty and for justice and social progress.

This movement, according to Father Janvier, comprised three million members, and care had been taken to bestow the presidency upon a highly respected personality: General de Castelnau.

Concerning this movement, Georges Viance writes:

“A crusade! This was the only word to describe the extent of the movement. … If they were not all shouting: It is the will of God! at least they were all chanting the Credo on the public square. . . .

“Everything was clear: the ‘Catholic Action’ had to be organized and promoted in France, just as Pius X had recommended, just as Pius XI was going to demand and order everywhere. . . .

“Errors condemned and general directives: Socialism is condemned. . . . Liberalism is condemned. Already Pius XI, in his encyclical ‘Quanta Cura’, had stigmatized those who dared to teach that the perfection of governments and civil progress demand that human society be constituted and governed without a distinction being made between true and false religions. At the same time, he promulgated the ‘Syllabus’ condemning modernism.

“Leo XIII showed that religious freedom is unjustifiable. The Pope recalled also that freedom of speech and writing cannot be justly admitted. . . .

“‘These teachings and prescriptions of the Church’, says Pius XI, ‘must be revived’. Under the control of the Hierarchy, organized by the decentralization of the Diocesan Committees, this is still the principal aim of the F.N.C. . . .

“General Castelnau’s ‘En avant!’ applies in the Catholic Action, as in war.

“It is unnecessary to say how very closely Pius Xl watched the practices of French Catholics.”

It is only fair to say of the President of the F.N.C., a great wartime personality, that his intentions were pure and, misunderstanding the true aims of the Holy See, he believed he was acting in the interests of his country.

Pious pens were mobilized to exalt the work of Mussolini and Hitler, of these”men of Providence”who were the pride of the two “regenerated”nations.

It would be cruel to recall the names of all those who more or less consciously succumbed to the contagion and bowed down to the idols.

Let us for a moment return to the political situation in France following the disturbances of 6 February 1934. A book by Francois Ternand will take us back:

The “man of Providence”

“. . . A propaganda campaign, skilful and insistent, begins in favour of a ‘Retain dictatorship’ ….

“In 1935 Gustave Herve published a booklet which we shall leaf through and which reflects exceptionally well the ambitions and schemes inherent in the policies with which we have been dealing. The brochure is entitled: ‘C’est Petain qu’il nous faut’, and though it is quite well known, it would appear that insufficient light has so far been directed on the singular warnings which it contains. . . .

“It is particularly instructive to reread these articles of La Victoire, in which defeat is recorded and the government of defeat prepared. Gustave Herve introduces his collection with a Preface, in which he enthusiastically defends the ‘Italian recovery’ and the ‘recovery, still more marvellous, of Germany’, and he exalts the admirable chiefs who were responsible. And we, the French, what is our position? We, ‘instead of a Mussolini or a Hitler, have a Flandin!’ And yet our man is here. We have but to rally to him. . . . His name is Petain.

“Thus, ‘Petain is the man for us’, for ‘the nation is in danger’. Not only the nation, but Catholicism: ‘In every country Christian civilization is doomed to die if a dictatorial regime does not come to the rescue.’. . .”

Let us now hear General Chadebec de Lavalade,4 Philippe Petain’s equal, describe the latter’s attitude during and after the first world war:

Petain?

“There appeared, in Paris in 1936 and at the beginning of 1937, a book which was indisputably the best military history of the 1914-1918 war. . . . It is the four volumes of ‘L’Histoire de la Guerre Mondiale’, by the four French generals Duffour, Daille, Hellot and Tournes. . ..It is clearly shown that:

-Although Petain may have been a subordinate chief of high value, he never possessed the moral qualities of a supreme chief, military or civil, that is to say, of a chief in the highest sense of the word;

—His attitude towards our aHies in 1916-1918 contained the nucleus of his conduct towards England in 1940.”

Fault will long be found with Petain’s conduct in his capacity as Chief of State—albeit of a vassal state—during the years 1940 to 1945.

What part did his own will play in the measures taken by his government? And how much of what happened was due to pressure from the invader? To reply with absolute certainty, it would be necessary to have fathomed the secret of his conscience.

Absolute justice demands that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt …: we shall assume that certain measures taken by the Chief of this vassal state were more or less imposed upon him. But others corresponded so well to his political opinions, his religious faith and especially his clerical tendencies that there can be no doubt that he took them of his own accord—or, it would be better to say, upon the inspiration of the Holy See.

Camille Cianfarra writes in this connexion:

“On several occasions during the months following the armistice, the Pope, by his approbation, encouraged the aged Marshal. . . . The Vatican entered into negotiations with Vichy with a view to concluding a concordat. … It was requesting complete freedom for its religious orders and congregations, the restoration of religious instruction in the schools and recognition of the Catholic Action . . . the Osservatore Romano was praising Marshal Petain’s constructive efforts.”

Besides, one has only to read what La Croix was writing at the time to get a complete picture. An idea may be had from the following extracts:

—”We have many sins to atone for. An official policy of dechristianization has sapped our nation’s vitality. . . . There has been too much blasphemy and not enough prayers. . . . The day of reckoning had to come. That day is here and we must atone for our sins with tears and with blood….”(27 June 1940)

-“La Croix has taken pleasure in noting the close agreement existing between the pontifical encyclicals and the speeches or writings of the Head of the State, and in stressing the parallelism between many of the Marshal’s declarations and the teachings of Leo XIII, Plus XI and Pius XII. . . . The French, by accepting the Pope’s ideas, are sure of fulfilling some of Marshal Petain’s dearest wishes and in particular of responding to some of the most urgent exhortations contained in his last message.”(24 August 1941).

—”It would appear that the terms: ‘European revolution’ and ‘national revolution’ are inseparable. Our revolution must closely resemble those of our neighbours (Italy, Germany, Spain). Europe is heading towards total synchronization.”(15 August 1941)

—”It is very understandable that these states (Germany, Italy, Japan), should have agreed to establish a front against a danger which, particularly in the West, is threatening civilization and our Christian ideals.”(5 December 1942).

—”This (Laval’s visit to Hitler on 29 April 1943) will widen our horizon; from the silent position that was hers immediately after the armistice, France moves into a position of a nation with a role to play. . . .”(3 May 1943).

—”Nothing good can come of the intervention of troops from across the Channel and from the other side of the Atlantic. . . .” (10 August 1943).

At the Liberation, as we know, all the newspapers that had published under the German occupation were suppressed. lLa Croix’ alone was excepted from this measure. Was this the reward for having printed such texts?

This question should be put to Mr. de Menthon, one of the chiefs of the religious (M.R.P.) party, and at that time Keeper of the Seal. Indeed, let us see what Artaban of 13 December 1957 has to say:

“For four years, ‘La Croix’ was drawing upon the secret funds of the ‘Head of enslaved France’. An original document duly photographed shows a monthly subsidy of 160,000 francs for 1943 — i.e., 1,920,000 francs for the year. This subsidy was to be increased during the following years, until the Liberation.

“In 1944, tLa Croix’ was prosecuted for having dealings with the enemy and was handed over to the Court of Justice of Paris, the investigations being entrusted to Judge Raoult, who found no ground for prosecution. The affair was brought before the tribunal of the Chamber on 13 March 1946 (see J.O.D.P., pp. 713-714) and it was then learned that Mr. de Menthon, Minister of Justice and fiery reformer of the French press, had exerted pressure in favour of ‘La Croix’. . . .”

Artaban also stresses a fact of vital importance:

“‘La Croix’ used to receive orders from the German Lieutenant Sahm and, at Vichy, from Pierre Laval.”

Apparently, these orders were very much like those of the Holy Father, who expressed his satisfaction by saying:

“The Pope sends his blessing to ‘La Croix’, the organ of ‘pontiftca! thought’.”(La Croix, 28 January 1942).

Is this not sufficiently clear?

The Episcopate, it goes without saying, did not express itself any differently from the official organ of the Holy See. This may be seen from a few quotations:

—”Today, in the face of immense disaster, all Frenchmen feel that the national Rebirth calls for a vigorous renewal of our moral value. They expect the Church to play its important role in this urgent task of salvation. . . . Catholic Action must be given a more important place.”

(Cardinal Gerlier, Archbishop of Lyons, Primat des Gaules). —”In mid-November 1940, Cardinal Baudrillart, fully supported by Cardinal Suhard, asked me to bring to Marshal Petain a letter in which the Rector was assuring the Chief of the State of his devotion, friendship and complete loyalty. I also had the mission of imparting to Marshal Petain the Rector’s concern over the future of Christian instruction in our country.”

(Le Cardinal Baudrillart, Temoignages et Souvenirs, by Canon Tricot, Professor at the Institut Catholique. Flammarion, Paris 1943, pp. 92 and 93).

—”We owe him our respect, our obedience and our prayers. He would have spared us our misfortunes, had France been governed according to his principles. . . .”

(Mgr. Chollet, Archbishop of Cambrai—23 January 1940). —”Providence has honoured us through him.”

(Mgr. Gerbeau, Bishop of Nimes, La Croix, 24 January 1941). In 1942, in the full euphoria of the Vichy Government, the Master General of the Dominicans, S. Gillet, published a book entitled Le Re veil de I’amefranyaise, which he dedicated to the Chief of the State with this flattering quotation:”To Marshal Petain, to whom honour is due for having awakened the soul of France”.

What is to be found in this book, which bears the Imprimatur of Vichy, No. 11,098? Father Gillet openly condemns the principles of 1789, the League of Nations as well as liberal doctrines. It would have surprised us if he had not done so:

“A regime in flagrant contradiction with that which had been hers ever since her earliest days, has almost been the death of France. Why, then, should those scrupulous observers of the experiment, who advised the French to have done with a regime of death and to return to their traditions, be called retrogressive and enemies of progress? . . . It is no longer a question of exalting the Declaration of Human Rights. . . .

“We ought all to give thanks to Providence for having sent us once again a saviour in the person of the Marshal. We know that this saviour was accompanied by many others. We need only recall number two: Mr. Pierre Laval, Chief of the Vichy Government. Our second saviour was even more explicit than the first, when he declared, very much to the point:

“I want Germany to win. It seems strange, does it not, to hear the conquered wish for the conqueror’s victory? But this war is unlike the others: it is a veritable war of religion! Yes, a war of religion.”

That is clear enough! Moreover, one is not likely to doubt the competence of the man who uttered these words, particularly since he had been made a count by Pius XI in 1935.

It would be irksome to go on listing specimens of the pious literature which flourished at that time. But we should reproach ourselves were we to omit one of the gems of the collection, quoted by Jean Cotereau in his excellent work UEglise a-t-elle collabore?

Le Patriote des Pyrenees explains why the Pope did not raise his voice in 1939 and 1940 in favour of the soldiers who we believed were fighting for civilization and everything that is right. Today we must admit that this cause was at best very badly defended. Indeed, time was to show that its defenders were neither materially nor morally up to their task. Thus it is understandable that the Pope should have kept the cause of Christian civilization apart from our own and avoided linking its destiny with that of our armies. Had he not done so, he would now be confronted with its collapse.” (La Croix, 8 September 1940).

No doubt the reader will, like ourselves, have appreciated this little master-piece of baseness, not to say, of infamy.

The following extracts are taken from the forceful preface which Maurice Nadeau wrote for the book L’Eglise a-t-elle collabore?:

“Yes, the Church did ‘collaborate’. Not only did she serve Petain’s regime, she inspired it, she identified herself with it, and ruled through it. …

“It is not even a question of a bargaining between Petain and the Catholic Church . . . but of a process of osmosis: Petain was the Church’s man just as he was Germany’s man. ‘His speeches and the Papacy’s encyclicals are of a same noble inspiration’. When he received the American press, Petain said: ‘France will restore to honour the great truths of Christian ethics’, whilst the Editor-in-chief of La Croix declared that ‘the New Order will bear the imprint of the Christian character . . . if it is to succeed and to endure’. Today we know what is meant by this ‘new order’, so highly extolled by the Church and the ex-marshal: thousands in concentration camps, thousands of shot ‘terrorists’, thousands of assassinated Jews. and an entire nation in chains. . . .

“Was there a single voice of authority to be heard explicitly stigmatizing the Nazi exactions, the forced labour, the deportations and French servitude? Instead, there were twenty, fifty, one hundred prelate voices — august voices these — bidding us not only to obey and to suffer, but to enthuse over German victories; voices demanding the death penalty for Communists, approving the destruction of Free-masonry and the persecution of the Jews; voices magnifying the relieving troops, the S.T.O. and ‘collaboration’; and voices bawling against the trade-uaions as well as against the materialism and ‘foolish pretentious of the working masses’.

“‘Now is the time for the Catholics’, proclaimed Canon Clavel, meaning the long-awaited revenge on the ‘laic school’. . . . ‘Our defeat will bear more fruit than a frustrated victory’, proclaimed an editor of ‘La Croix’ ‘Had we been victorious, we would probably have remained the prisoners of our errors’, echoed Cardinal Gerlier. And the Pope himself, from the summit of his infallibility, acknowledging France as ‘the eldest daughter of the Church’, ”confidently welcomed the measures of public morality which everyone felt were so urgent for the true and lasting restoration of the country’.

“France has forgotten. .. .’La Croix/ which was the most dangerous organ at the service of the Collaboration, is found among the newspapers of liberated France, and the pr elates who were pressing French youth to work for a German victory, have not been handed over to the tribunals.”

Thus, as early as 1945, Maurice Nadeau was able to write, with every good reason,”France has forgotten”.

As Franz von Papen points out in liis Memoires the Franco-German “collaboration” was no hasty improvisation ordained by circumstances, but a carefully premeditated long-term enterprise, and Mgr. Baudrillart was one of its very first originators.

We should not be surprised, therefore, to find the eminent prelate, after the defeat of 1940. at the head of the most ardent Hitlerists. What Parisian does not remember the famous exhibition in favour of French enrolment in the L.V.F., organized at the Salle Wagram under the high patronage of Marshal Petain, of the Minister Schleir, Hitler’s personal representative, and with the active participation of Cardinal Baudrillart and of Abel Bonnard?

Only death put an end, in 1942, to this holy man’s activities.

The message of condolence which Pius XII on this occasion sent to the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris is significant. It was through the ApostoUc Nuncio at Berlin that the message was sent. This violation of elementary international protocol speaks volumes for the feelings of His Holiness. There is such a thing as wishful thinking, and what could have been more desirable for the Pontificate than to see the richest regions of France included in the advantageous German concordat, and the number of Catholics in the Reich increased by a few million? It is obvious that the”collaboration” was a”paying”proposition for the Church, and one understands why her prelates should have done all they could to promote it— even, like Mgr. Baudrillart, from beyond the tomb.

Yet, certain Catholic patriots, like Mr. Jacques Madaule,11 recognized that the Episcopate was largely responsible for the damage done by this propaganda of Vichy, which, by means of gross intellectual and moral subversion, was trying to misrepresent to the French their country’s defeat and was inciting them to give themselves unreservedly to the service of the enemy:

“It cannot be denied that the majority of the bishops are partly responsible for these calamities and we cannot fairly judge and condemn Petain without judging and condemning the members of the Episcopate who, until the very end, gave him their full support.” It will doubtless be recalled that these collaborating prelates escaped all, or nearly all, sanction.

“The day after the Liberation, the Government decided to demand the Vatican to hand over thirty bishops and archbishops whose attitude during the occupation had been questioned.”^ Thanks to the mediation of the Vatican delegate, three only had to resign. In 1936, Canon Coube produced a book under the apparently innocent title of Sainte Therese de FEnfant Jesus et les crises du temps present, bearing the Imprimatur. Among other questionable phrases were the following:

“I only know that a world war is possible, more dreadful than the last. I also know that this war is in the hands of God, like a bomb which He can drop on the nations if they continue to provoke His anger.”

The threat to the “laic” democracies is unambiguous. But let us see what comes next:

“What is the role of Saint Theresa? The Sovereign Pontiff has proclaimed her patroness of Catholic missions and of unfortunate Russia . . . here, then, is a lttle Frenchwoman rising up, smiling but terrible, like an army in battle array, against the Bolshevik colossus.”

This was foretelling the campaign of 1942, in which the L.V.F., alongside the Wehrmacht and dressed in its uniform, was to fight Russia. Moreover, in order that the reader should in no way misunderstand the real character of the operation predicted by this mystical jargon, the author is very careful to add:

“The Pope who has invested her with this formidable mission is no dreamer, but a powerful man of action and an inspired creator who knows what is going on in the world today.”

Thus, we are warned that Pius XI, in this battle to the death against Communist Russia—but also Orthodox Russia, a point of cardinal importance—is not counting solely on the little saint and on theological canons. This”powerful man of action”, this”inspired creator”of Hitlerist Europe who”knows what is going on in the world today”will resort to more efficient weapons.

Yet it was fitting that it should be revealed to us—in 1936, mark you—what part Saint Theresa, that is to say France, would take in the”just and holy”wars to which the fiery ecclesiastic refers.

After a violent diatribe against the republican regime and against parliamentarians—”What makes men harmful is their religious indifference and their laicism, which brings down upon their heads and upon their country the wrath of Heaven”—the author expresses his faith in a national revival, which will be entirely due to the”race of saviours, to the race of great-hearted men who work solely for the Glory of God”.

Can it be doubted, after this, that Canon Coube was in the secret of the gods, that is to say of the politics that were being machinated at the Vatican? His allusions are transparent: the Papacy, which singled out Mussolini, Hitler and Franco, to act as its secular arms, keeps in reserve other”saviours”—to serve in the enslaved countries this time. In France, there will be Petain, Laval, Mgr. Baudrillart, Doriot, de Brinon, Deat, Abel Bonnard, Darquier de Pellepoix, etc. . . . One could draw up a long list of these saviours who saved nothing . . . and especially not honour!

But one cannot help feeling sad when one thinks of the many honest folk and fine Frenchmen who were thus abused by this medley of Vatican, Hitlerist and Fascist propaganda.

The truth is that the psychological preparation had been planned with care, over a long period. In France as well as in Belgium, Catholic circles had been subjected to an indoctrination both systematic and ever-increasing,”Europa machen”—make a Europe, and make it according to”Christian”principles—a happy phrase with which to veil, both honourably and piously, the serfdom that had been prepared for the guileless. It has, in fact, been in use ever since; and is still served up by Catholic Action propagandists, so skilful at diverting to the ends of the most cynical Vatican policy the youthful enthusiasm of new generations for a broad supranationalism.

Thus, the”revival”which was awaiting honest Frenchmen was maturely and cunningly premeditated. He who styles himself the Vicar of God took it upon himself to”bring forth men from on his right hand”to”raise up (with the kick of German boots) the country of Clo vis and Saint Louis”. We are greatly indebted to him for this!

But, Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia and France were not the only ones to benefit by the bounties of the Holy Father. It will be seen in the next chapter how his tireless solicitude was also at work in Croatia.

And he said. What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. (Genesis IV, 10)