Thursday, May 25, 2023

Pierre Laval:: Patriot, Traitor or Collaborator Laval needs to be reviewed critically

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books
Pierre Laval 

    Pierre Laval (1883- 1945) was Prime        Minister of France three thrice, served       as a   Minister of the Third Republic        13   times and   was Foreign Minister         and President of the   Council. A socialist   by conviction and a   French patriot, by   choice he became the   victim of Charles   de Gaulle's politics and   his  execution in   1945 after a trial that even   Stalin would   have found embarrassing,: a   grotesque   

Kafkaesque political drama in   which Laval was denied a fair trial without   witnesses, documents or evidence. And his meeting with Hitler as Prime Minister and with Mussolini earlier held up as evidence of treason, collaboration and therefore guilty.

The great Athenian Historian, Thucydides wrote with great insight, nearly two thousand five hundred years back, "to fit in  with the change of events, words too  had to change their usual meaning." Ideology and political expediency demanded a new Hero and a new Church and the hero and the church required a sacrifice in blood and that was paid by Laval. On the night preceding his execution he tried to kill himself and it was decided to shoot him on a stretcher, if he  could not walk. De Gaulle claimed that his "Fighting France" had "liberated" France from the Germans. The truth is that he was allowed to march a small contingent of 500 men at the head of the Anglo American column and thus the keystone of the Gaullist ideology rests on a piece of contrived propaganda. Gaulle did not liberate France and neither was Pierre Laval a collaborator or a traitor. De Gaulle with the help of the Communists and elements of the French Right whipped up a cloud of passion which cast deep doubts on the motives and actions of Pierre Laval. Unfortunately, the Gaullist State institutionalised the self serving ideologically potent myth and like marionettes Historians are dancing ever since to this absurdity. In fact anyone even suggesting a more nuanced and balanced opinion or assessment is usually hollered down by the rabid defenders of de Gaulle. 

Few Historians recognise today that Pierre Laval was the first European statesman to understand the danger posed by Hitler. After  becoming Prime Minister in 1931 he sought to bring Social Insurance and succeeded and to this day his scheme lasts. In 1935 as Prime Minister he met Mussolini in Rome and convinced him to accept the responsibility of defending Austria and when the Germans assassinated the Austrian Chancellor, Dollfuss, it was Italy that forced Germany and Hitler to back off from outright annexation. Recognizing the danger posed by Germany and responding to that danger by creating an international coalition with Italy and Britain fell through as Britain was going through it "appeasement" phase and when Britain accepted the remilitarization of the Rhineland without a whisper of protest, Laval realised that in any confrontation France would be left high and dry. The same fear took him to Moscow, but Stalin too was in no mood to confront Germany. Given this track record of diplomacy against Hitler's Germany, Laval can be termed a "fascist" and "collaborator" only by those who use History  as a tool of political legitimation. Samuel Hoare the Foreign Minister of Britain signed an agreement with Laval but it created a storm in Britain which did not quite see Germany as an existential threat to civilization, and Laval clearly did. When Laval's policy of containment fell through, he became more prudent. 

In 1940 when Germany invaded France and concluded an  Armistice which was hugely popular, Laval had no role in this at all as he became Prime Minister under Marshall  Phillipe Pe'tain after the Armistice. Does this transfer of power which took place with  the concurrence of the National Assembly constitute treason. The charge of treason cannot be made unless we take into consideration the fact that the Armed Forces, Police and territory were firmly controlled by the existing Government. I hesitate to use the very word Vichy as it carries the stain of Gaullist invective. De Gaulle went to France where he was permitted to claim that he represented "Free France", the Cross of Loraine that Sir Winston Churchill and the Allies carried reluctantly. Pierre Laval was dismissed in 1940 and for the next two years he remained out of office. He was recalled in 1942 and held office until 1944. Only the retrospective judgement marinated in expediency and political need can lead to the imposition of the construct of Traitor and Collaborator on Laval.

Pierre Laval kept French institutions clear of German influence and all the judges on the hastily constituted a High Court of Justice including the chief, Paul Mongibeaux were all servants of the Vichy Government and they did not see the irony of sitting in judgement on a man who was its head. The fact is de Gaulle wanted Pierre Laval punished and executed so that he could build his political future on dead Laval. The jury consisted by Socialists who were politically opposed to Vichy and a death sentence was handed down and on 15th October 1945 Laval faced a firing squad. The trial and sentence were timed so that before the Elections in 1945, de Gaulle could appear before the French as the Grand H'omme the saviour of "Eternal France" and refurbish its image as a Great Power. And the removal of Laval did accomplish all this. France's defeat and neutrality (not collaboration) could be wiped clean and the Gallic Coq was free to strut its stuff on the world's stage. 

The most egregious charge against Pierre Laval was with regard to the French Navy anchored in North Africa. The British planes bombed the ships destroying the ships killing 1300 sailors on board, an attack similar to the Pearl Harbour Attack by Japan. Even this provocation did not lead to France declaring war against England and thereby proving the neutrality of Vichy. How could this incident be brought as evidence of a hostile attitude towards France. Political necessity had created a climate in which honest assessment of Laval's role was neither made nor attempted. And de Gaulle was waiting in the wings to erect his political future on the corpse of Pierre Laval.

An assessment of Pierre Laval must consider the circumstances of his regime and with the exception of Rousso few Historians have taken those under consideration. Pierre Laval preserved France as State and Country in the face of huge challenges. Nazification of French public institutions was resisted almost till the bitter end. German demands for labour was met but with reluctance and Jewish persecution was resisted till the end of 1943 when it became impossible for France to fight Germany.

An assessment of Pierre Laval must consider all  these facts.


Wednesday, May 17, 2023

Queen Anne Boleyn Justice, Law and Reality: A Historian looks at May 19th, 1536

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books
The Execution Woodcut Print  



A contemporary woodcut print illustrates the 19th May 1536 tragedy on Tower Green, London

Trial Papers
On May 19th, 1536 an elegant woman, dressed in a crimson velvet gown, a white bodice covered by a chemise, in French fashion walked across to an open space just beyond the Royal Quarters, where a back draped scaffold had been erected. Queen Anne (yes, she was still Queen) walked and knelt down after making the speech that Hollywood has hammered into the heads of movie goers: Good Christian people! I have not come hither to make a speech, but to die." Exhorting the people to serve their Gentle Sovereign Prince she absolves him of all blame as she has been Judged by the Law. Her words were carefully chosen, if we trust the version given by the Spanish Ambassador who for some inexplicable reason was a witness to this tragedy.  Anne certainly wanted to protect the claims of her 3 year old daughter Elizabeth to the throne as promulgated by the Act of Succession. After a brief moment of prayer she moved her head, and the French executioner swiftly and in one swell scoop cut off her head, and it bobbed on to the platform. Historical Records make it clear that the French executioner was summoned even before the trial had started, suggesting quite plausibly that the charges against Anne and the 5 men including her brother George Boleyn were driven by political and extra legal considerations.

Death Warrant
  After the judicial trial and execution of Queen Anne, the Lord Chancellor of the Real Thomas Cromwell ordered all records of the trial destroyed and Henry VIII, fresh after his marriage to Jane Seymour scrubbed all  traces of his three year marriage with Anne by ordering the removal of her coat of arms from Hamden Court. However the almost complete transcript of the trial has been preserved and Historians like Eric Ives are quite convinced of the innocence of the Queen, her brother George and the 4 men who died with him two days earlier. 

Lets look at the charges that took the Queen to her death that May morning. Incest, Adultery and wishing "death" to the King making it a act of treason. The last charge is easily disposed of. Wishing "death" to the King entered the statues only in 1351 and was never invoked until this charge. And it is quite likely that a humorous off the cuff remark was misconstrued, but the serious injury sustained by the King in a jousting tournament a few weeks earlier added a sinister tone to a flippant remark and Jane Boleyn, the wife of George Boleyn and therefore the Sister-in-Law of Anne was the only witness. As for the other charges, a Queen's adultery remained a matter of Church Law not subject to the King's Court or the Star Chamber. On May 2nd 1536 the Queen was arrested and taken to the tower where she lived for the next fortnight until her date with the French executioner from Calais. 

The Lord Chancellor, Thomas Cromwell used procedural manipulation to secure her conviction. He separated the trial of the 5 men including her brother, George, from that of the Queen and made Anne face Lord Norfolk, her own uncle who was the presiding judge of a "Jury of her peers". A day prior, the 5 men had been sentenced to death leaving no hope for the Queen except the mercy of her "Sovereign Lord". Within days of her death Henry VIII married Jane Seymour and this leaves the question open about the motives of Henry VIII. The King had broken with the Roman Catholic Church over his marriage to Katherine of Aragon, the niece of the King of Spain. The "Great Matter" of the King's marriage had been managed by Thomas Cromwell who literally rode rough shod over the clerical institutions and establishment. The "dissolution of the monasteries" a strategy adopted for securing treasure for the impending war with France led to protests all over Northern England, called the Pilgrimage of Grace. And Queen Anne came out in open support of the Pilgrimage of Grace. Thus the King and his first Minister both had strong personal and political reasons to see the end of Queen Anne.

The innocence of the Queen is established by the fact that the dates on which she was said to commit acts of adultery were days on which she was not present in the places where the acts as charged took place. Also the Queen was not permitted to bring her evidence or cross examine the witnesses and so the jury retuned as expected a guilty verdict and she met her end.

Thomas Cromwell and Jane Boleyn or Lady Rochford too met their ends on the scaffold. Was Karma at work. Who knows? Who can predict the mysterious ways through which Fate/Fortuna acts.