Talk:Pierre Laval

Editing the article

After years of editing and rewriting I hope people can now accept this article as an objective biography of Laval.

"General de Gaulle and the French people required immediate show-trials in order to concentrate collective feelings of guilt onto the few. [29][30] [31] Two trials were to be held. Although it had its faults, the Pétain trial permitted the presentation and examination of a vast amount of pertinent material. Laval's own trial illustrated nothing but the inadequacies of the judicial system and the poisonous political atmosphere of that purge-trial era.[32]"

"Poisonous political atmosphere"? "Inadequacies of the judicial system"? "Show-trials in order to concentrate collective feelings of guilt onto the few"? "Although it had its faults"? These are all judgmental--and non-neutral--statements, no matter how many sources you can find arguing that this is the case. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; it is not for us to cast judgment on Laval's trial or de Gaulle's motives. We can only state what others think--making perfectly clear that it is their opinion, not Wikipedia's. As written the first paragraph violates WP:NPOV. It needs to be either rewritten or removed. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I do not know a single scholar who would not agree with the statement "General de Gaulle and the French people required immediate show-trials" I have removed that sentence from the Trial section. As to the "poisonous political atmosphere" and "the inadequacies of the judicial system" --- there is enough evidence to make these "facts" and not merely "opinions." However in deference to your wish, I have rewritten this part of the paragraph.Sirswindon (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Sir Swindon

Quotes

"I want to tell you that I think this war is a great mistake. If we had come to terms with Mussolini, as I wanted to do, we might have held Germany. That is no longer possible. We have given most of Europe to Hitler. Let us try to hold on to what we have got left. I am a peasant from the Auvergne. I want to keep my farm, and I want to keep France. Nothing else matters now."

"In the event of a victory over Germany by Soviet Russia and England, Bolshevism in Europe would inevitably follow. Under these circumstances I would prefer to see Germany win the war. I feel that an understanding could be reached (with Germany) which would result in a lasting peace with Europe and believe that a German victory is preferable to a British and Soviet victory."

- by Laval himself.

"The figure of Pierre Laval hung like an evil shadow over Vichy as the year opened. The former Prime Minister was a shrewd and able politician who staked his own future and that of France on an Axis victory. He was favoured by the German occupation authorities. A test of strength between Germany and the United States in Vichy was in the making as 1942 opened. It was to result in April in a temporary victory for Laval when the Germans forced the Marshal to take him back into the Government, which event necessitated my recall to Washington.

He was a small man, swarthy-complexioned, careless in his personal appearance, but with a pleasing manner of speech. In a very frank discussion of his policies, Laval gave the impression of being fanatically devoted to his country, with a conviction that the interests of France were bound irrevocably with those of Germany. One's impression necessarily was qualified by persistent reports that he had used his political offices to advance his private personal fortune. It was true that, starting with nothing, he had advanced from a poor delivery boy in a provincial town grocery to become a very rich man and a power in his country.

He convinced me that his Government was fully committed and might be expected to go as far as it could to collaborate with Germany and assist in the defeat of what he termed Soviet-British Bolshevism. Pierre Laval definitely was not on our side in this war."

- Admiral William Leahy, US ambassador to Vichy France.

An apology for Laval

Poor Pierre Laval, most definitely the 'man you love to hate.' Even Marshal Pétain, head of the Vichy state, said of him Ce Laval-quel fumier! (What horse shit). In a poll carried out Novelle Litterairies in 1980 on the fairness of his post-war trial, only 2% of the respondents said that he should have been acquitted. Indeed, Laval has become the ultimate scapegoat, the French Judas. There are still those who would excuse Pétain, believing he acted for noble if misguided motives. Nobody defends or excuses Laval, who is held to represent the 'unacceptable face' of Vichy. Even his appearance was against him; he seems the very quintessence of the shifty and disreputable politician. He was the ultimate wheeler-dealer, reflected even in his nickname, the 'horse trader.'

What defence can be made? Very little, I suppose, but I will try my best. First and foremost, he set out to preserve his country, not to betray it. He was never in that sense a Quisling, and senior French fascists were kept out of the Vichy administration. His task, as he saw it, was to continue the work of Aristide Briand in ending the emnity between France and Germany. But whereas Briand had Gustav Streseman, Laval had Hitler. He was also mindful of the fate of Poland under the Nazis, and saw active collaboration as a way of preventing a similar fate befalling France, thus ensuring that the country would have a role to play in the post-war settlement. He did not 'believe' in a German victory; but he did expect it. His chief aim was to conclude a treaty that would end the occupation, bring French prisoners of war home, and secure France's overseas empire. His chief failure was that he never really understood that the Germans were not at all intrested in maintaining a 'reasonable relationship', only in securing French support in advancing their war aims. Even his scheme to bring the prisoners of war home in return for sending French workers to Germany produced little in the way of practical returns, France giving far more than it received. He did his best to save the French Jews from deportation, but only at the sacrifice of those not of French nationality, which had the effect of turning his horse-trading into the grossest forms of moral turpitude.

He may indeed have been right, that things would have been worse without him, a defence that he made at his 'trial' in 1945. To the very end he preserved the semblance of an independent French state, and kept his long-standing promise that he would never consent to a declaration of war. The problem was that he simply lost all sight of the big picture, and that the collaboration which he believed would save France forced him into ever decreasing circle of compromise and betrayal. A more prudent politician would have said much and given little. Laval said much and gave even more. Clio the Muse 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• There were a few minor spelling mistakes in the above piece of writing, which I have corrected. However I disagree with the translation of Pétain´s quote, in my opinion it should be translated as "That Laval, what a dung heap!" or "That Laval, what a piece of shit!" or something similar. Also there is no mention of the fact that Laval is buried in Montparnasse Cemetery, in an ordinary grave, where he is left in peace, contrary to other (facist) memorials in Paris which are regularly vandalised. JHvW (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. First of all, why try to defend Laval? He betrayed not only his country but the values on which France was founded. From the beginning, whereas some didn't surrender and kept on fighting from London, from Russia, from North Africa, Laval not only capitulated but eagerly embraced the enemy. He showed so much zeal in collaborating that the sometimes even embarrassed the Germans. You mention the "big picture", securing French interests, not necessarily wanting Germany to win but expecting it, wanting the return of French prisoners. What about the torture of resistants by the Milice? The soldiers killed by the LVF. The deported of the STO? If, as you say, senior French fascists were kept out of the Vichy administration, what was Philippe Henriot? He did his best to save the French Jews from deportation: when did he ever try to save even one Jew? What law did he refuse to apply? Did he ever defend the Jews in front of the Germans? I don't recall him protesting after the Rafle du Vel'd'Hiv. Laval was a dangerous combination of weakness, bitterness, meanness and ambition. For the sake of the memory of all who died killed by the LVF, tortured by the Milice or arrested and deported by the police, I don't believe one should write an "apology". An "explanation" perhaps, but Laval has too much blood on his hands for an "apology".--Scotchorama 08:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete post; if you disagree, add a comment, but attempting to censor won't work here.--Scotchorama (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To all posters on here, please remember Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion SGGH ^speak! 12:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read almost all of the books, both in French and English, covering his life and his death. Frankly Clio is closer to describing Leval than is Scotchorama. I have listed all those in my Library (i.e. those I have read) one of which is the full stenographic record of the Trial. Sirswindon (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)SirSwindon Completed as promised. 3 October 2008.

SirSwindon, if you can make use of your resources to make additions (or rewrite, as necessary) the article, then I would say do so while you still can!! Detailed referencing is always an excellent idea. However, you ought not include any opinions of your own, unless you happen to have written a book making reference to Laval. Including published author's perceptions of Laval is, of course, allowed.

Somewhere in one of my books I have a photograph of Laval at his trial, tie-less if I recall, making a frenzied speech. It is the only time I personally have sympathised with a man, as it is not often you see someone fighting for their life. It would be nice if it, and other photographs, could be added to the article. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and incited facts

The section "Under Vichy France" in particular, however much of the article, contains a number of statements which are very anti-Laval, and implicate him in a number of extreme and very pro-Nazi activities. While this is all fine with correct, verifiable references and citations, I question the reliability and neutrality of the section while these un-cited statements remain so. I have tagged the article thus, and hopefully with some references from historical sources (Lavals diaries, France the Dark Years 1940-1944 and Vichy France by Robert Paxton I am about to use to read on the topic) these statements can be cited and the problem resolved.

It goes without saying (though I am in danger of being accused of this) that I am neither a pro-Nazi sympathiser or a historical idiot, just a wikipedian, so plase realise that I have the interests of the article at heart. SGGH ^speak! 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

face it: he was an active nazi collaborationist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.232.32 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire section on the war-years seems far too pro-Laval to be considered at all neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.188.33 (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote most of this section and it is neither pro-nor-anti Laval. It is taken from the many published works. Laval believed first in France. He was no saint --- but if you read all the books, as I have read them (both in English and French) you may come up with the same article as I have written. Before you comment, please do your homework first. Sirswindon (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)SirSwindo

I didn't want to get involved in this article anymore, but it ::has reached a point of absurdity.

I don't think the sources are the issue. Verifiability does not equal NPOV. The article is above all an explanation justifying what Laval did, and how "unfair" the trial was, and lacks, almost comically, Laval's main "achievements": sending 13000 Jews to their death (...yes, I know what the argument is: this was to save French Jews, an absurd and morally questionable stance), allowing the Gestapo to pursue resistants in Free France, sending all men born between 1920 and 1923 to labour camps in Germany (German officials demanded from Laval that more than 300,000 skilled workers should be immediately sent to factories in Germany. Laval stalled, and then countered by offering to send one worker for the return of one French soldier being held captive in Germany. The proposal was sent to Hitler, with a compromise being reached; one prisoner of war to be repatriated for every three workers arriving in Germany. Why is it, then, that 600 000 French men were sent to camps in July 1943. Fritz Sauckel himself noted that Laval had been the only European head of government to "fulfill" at 100% the worker program.)

First of all, some of Laval's quotes could illustrate clearly what he believed:

• "Il est des Français qui combattent en Russie. Ils sont partis comme volontaires. Ils incarnent nos meilleures traditions militaires et ils défendent le véritable intérêt français."
• "La démocratie, c'est l'antichambre du bolchevisme. Je marche en plein accord, en total accord avec Darnand".
• The article states that the results of Montoire were a disappointment for both sides, but Laval did state "Mon entrevue avec le chancelier Hitler à Montoire fut une surprise - une émouvante surprise ... En repoussant l'idée d'une paix de vengeance et d'oppression, le chancelier Hitler a permis à la France de s'intégrer volontairement dans le nouveau système qu'il créera lorsque la guerre sera terminée... La collaboration est dans l'ordre naturel des choses. Elle est indispensable à la France comme elle est utile à l'Allemagne."
• Finally, it should be mentioned that he was found guilty of "Haute trahison en ayant aidé l'ennemi et violé la sécurité de l'État".

No matter the colour of the wrapping paper, Laval was the main engine of collaborationist France. Whether or not it was in France's best interest is almost irrelevant (as far as one can wonder... what was France's best interest?), apart from portraying as a man with almost no sense of morality/ethics. The article also, and carefully places Laval between "ultra-collaborationists" and "resistants". I'm sorry, but in this case, Laval would be more of a "super-collaborationist" than anyone else in between.

The article also does not mention that Laval, in July and August 1942 had refused to omit from deportation children under the age of 16: even the Germans had not demanded that children be deported, but Laval voluntarily included them, despite having been warned of what awaited them. In September 1942, he authorized the Gestapo to pursue resistants in Free France.

How many resistants were arrested, tortured and killed because of Laval's collaborationist acts, how many Jews were deported and killed because of Laval's acts? Yes, I haven't read all the books written on Laval, but why quote Laval's widow and the prisoners' reaction? I do not believe that they were/are representative of the collective feeling at the time. You should also quote the reaction of some of the 13000 Jews sent to camps, including 4000 children that could have been saved, if it hadn't been for Laval's willingness to please Germany. Or quote some of the resistants arrested following Mission Desloges.

In summary, although the article is well-sourced, it carries a lot of justification for what Laval did, and doesn't really address what he actually did, nor does it reveal the consequences of his acts.

This is not a rant: I am just trying to prevent this Wikipedia article from becoming a revisionist pamphlet. Facts are facts, not matter what the explanation/justification. I have also added a NPOV tag, as clearly, previous comments show that I am not the only one to think that there is something wrong.--Scotchorama (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Scotchorama states he does not want to be involved in this article anymore, but then goes on to report it has reached a point of absurdity. In doing so he then proceeds far past the point of self-absurdity.

He repeats the many unsubstantiated statements so frequently presented by non-scholars. I suggest he has not read any of the following:

• Whitcomb, Philip W., France During The German Occupation 1940-1944, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1957 (Three Volumes)
• Clermont, Julien, L'homme qu'il Fallait Tuer --- Pierre Laval, Paris: Les Actes des Apotres, 1949
• Cole, Hubert, Laval, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1963
• Jacquemin, Gason, La vie publique de Pierre Lavals, 1963, Paris: Plon, 1973
• Mallet, Pierre Laval, Paris: Amiot Dumont, 1955, Volume I and II.
• Warner, Geoffery, Pierre Laval and the eclipse of France, New York: The Macmillian Company, 1968

Scotchorama writes here at length, giving his "opinions" but as far as I could find, no citations except to say Laval was found guilty of "High treason while having helped the enemy and violated the safety of the State." Scotchorama fails to point out that there is not one writer (biographer, scholar) today who calls Laval's trial anything other than a "sham."

In his paragraph beginning with: " No matter the colour of the wrapping paper" Scotchorama displays his emotions about a man he feels was morally no more than the Devil Incarnate. Yes, Laval was a collaborationist, but if Scotchorama were to read (quote from) Whitcomb he would not have written this paragraph as he did.

I have studied Laval's life for over sixty years. He was not Saint Laval nor was he the Devil Incarnate. He was a man with many faults. His life is worth being studied and used to understand how someone with great power, uses that power when under the "boot" of a mad tyrant.

And yes, all of us have read Laval's own quotations. We also understand why people make such statements, only then to take actions, which may be the antithesis of what was spoken.

I will look forward to Scotchorama's citations, and a less emotional reply. 76.89.107.137 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)SirSwindon

Sorry, but your list of references includes works that cannot possibly be taken seriously. For instance, "Julien Clermont" is a pseudonym for Georges Hilaire, a Vichy official; the book was published only four years after the end of the war; this is not a serious source for facts. Why don't you use reference sources, like Robert Paxton's works, for instance? Rama (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rama, Sorry about that --- In many ways both Tisssier and Torrés lack objectivity but they and Clermont (aka Hilaire) were included along with the many others who may or may not "be taken seriously." The list of references contains the works about Laval that are in my personal library. I have read two of Paxton's books, however I do not own copies. Rama, you seem to be knowledgeable about Laval, do you believe the Article as now presented is "absurd" as described by Scotchorama? Would you care to make any revisions? Sirswindon (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)SirSwindon

I am not particularly knowledgeable about Laval, and I do not have the time to make an in-depth reading of this article, much less the large bibliography needed to improve it. I am simply sensibilised to historiography enough to have bells ringing when I see a title like Hilaire's. Rama (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rama, I took your suggestion and have Referenced Robert Paxton in the article. Paxton (1982) on page 25, adds to the notion: "Laval was an ideal scapegoat, a man plausibly reputed to have invincible lobbying prowess, a symbol of evil incarnate by 1944, a man who was dead and could not cry 'tu quoque'." Also note that at the bottom of page 25, Paxton writes: "The essential study of Laval in any language is now Geoffrey Warner (London, 1968)". I agree with Paxton and as a result, in the notes to the article, I cited Warner more than any other author. Sirswindon (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)SirSwindon

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Rama, I believe the statement: "He was controversial enough that over twelve biographies have been written about him" belongs in the introduction paragraph because it is important to note at the beginning of the article that there are differing opinions concerning his actions. Sirswindon (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)SirSwindon

The number of bibliographies is not necessarily in proportion with differing opinions: for instance there have been lots of biographies of Hitler, but few that justify or minimise his actions, and none of these to be taken seriously.

In Hitler's case none of the biographies were written by individuals who had personal contact or personal knowledge about him. In the case of Laval, more than half of the many biographies were written by those who did have personal contact with him. This is the cause of the wide differing opinions. Sirswindon (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)SirSwindon

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Without being an expert, I think that it is quite safe to say that opinions about Laval that are significantly "different" are those of a fringe minority. Rama (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rama, if that were only true, but there is a large spectrum of opinions regarding Laval's actions and his motives. That is why I suggest reading Whitcomb and Warner. I personally knew Laval's son-in-law (1948), and although he was biased, I do believe he is worth reading. Sirswindon (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)SirSwindon

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Note that Laval was not merely minister for Foreign affairs: he headed the Interior (home office), Foreign affairs and Information, and also had authority over the Gendarmerie (which is organically under Defence). He also head the Milice Française. And I am not commenting on his being an intended successor of Pétain, or his personal influence and relations. Stating "Foreign affairs" is misleading at best. Rama (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem with your edit. Also we all know who was actually in charge of the Milice. Finally, as I am age 84, I do hope by the time I am 94 we can all agree on this biography of Laval.Sirswindon (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)SirSwindon

________________________________________________________________________________________________

May I repeat, I do hope that the addition of the recent edit shows that the article is a fair and objective biography of Pierre Laval. I don't know what more you could ask me to provide, but if someone still feels it does not present Laval as he was in "real life" please Scotchorama, tell me what you need to have presented. ````SirSwindon

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Every opinion in this entire page is a fair one. The reason there is controversy -- beside that the trial was a farce -- is that no-one can assign clear motives to Laval's actions, it was not for money, not fed by paranoia or some other mental malfunction. He seemed to have been aware that it was a dangerous path he was on (telling one of his pre-war collaborators to stay away because it was too dangerous). Backing Germany in 1939 might have seem a solution but why would he stick with the Germans after the wind turned? A true opportunist which he was often accused of being would have changed horses as many did. I have done a pretty extensive study of Laval before the War where he came accross as a rational man yet his position after the Germans invaded the "Free Zone" (Zone Libre)for example, defied rationality.La Paille au Nez (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrospective Assessment

This section as written is intolerable. First of all, it is simply bad style to include a massive block quote standing alone. Secondly, it is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT to have one person's point of view--regardless how notable it may be--take up so much space in the article. Third, it is inherently a violation of WP:NPOV, because it is presented uncritically and without any balance or alternative points of view. Fourth, it is not for Wikipedia to present a retrospective assessment at all, as we are a neutral tertiary source. Rather, we may only provide brief summaries of the main opinions represented within the secondary source literature. Last, and least, the article is entirely too long, and removing this section goes some way toward alleviating that problem.

I would also like to add that I consider Sirswindon's edit summary of his reversion, below, to be entirely inappropriate.

"This summary was approved to be included some time ago. Do not remove without an Editor's approval."

While I would have appreciated a revision that attempted to explain why the section was important and begin working towards a consensus, Sirswindon's does not do so. Rather, his edit summary suggests that he believes himself to be the owner of this article. Furthermore, this edit summary is based on a fallacious argument to authority. I see no discussion on the talk page regarding Sirswindon's decision to add this block quote, nor do I see any "approval" from anyone other than himself. Even if some consensus in favor of including that block quote did exist, it would not be immutable. In deleting that section I was being bold and following the correct, established policy of WP:BRD. Finally, allow me be blunt: I am an editor, and last I checked this was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. While I am perfectly happy to work towards consensus and have no intention of engaging in disruptive editing or edit warring, it is not Sirswindon's place to tell me or any other editor what I may or may not edit. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Restructuring, Trimming, and other Gnomery

I have reorganized the article in an effort to streamline it, by removing the "Biography" heading and moving all of its subheadings up a level. Similarly, I have created a new Goverments heading to include information on the various governments Laval headed, and removed duplicate information there. In addition, I have moved certain out of place segments around, trimmed some peacock language, fixed a number of grammatical and formatting errors, and removed a number of quotes which were of dubious relevance, unnecessary, or excessively long. I've also flagged this as of high importance to WikiProject France, and will be adding this talk page to the Second World War WikiProject. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fishman

The Sarah Fishman quote is in a book published by Harvard University Press, which is gold-plated and copper-bottomed. SirSwindon, if you have countermanding evidence from a source of similar academic quality, it may be included alongside Fishman. Otherwise, I would ask that you please stop removing that quote and adding unsourced material, as doing so is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you --- I will do so and show you that your gold-plated Harvard published book contains trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirswindon (talk • contribs) 15:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have completed my research and here are the results: After researching all the references I have removed that which lacks verification: 1) When Protestant leader Marc Boegner visited Laval in order to remonstrate, Laval claimed that he had ordered children to be deported along with their parents - to almost certain death - because families should not be separated and "children should remain with their parents". When Boegner argued that the children would almost certainly die, Laval replied "not one [Jewish child] must remain in France". [paldiel, Mordecai, Churches and the Holocaust: unholy teaching, good samaritans, and reconciliation p82] Boegner probably did visit Laval, and Laval may have stated that "children should remain with their parents" and “not a single one is to remain in France.” However the addition “to a certain death” was nowhere in any of the references listed. I have not been able to find a copy of the original material written by Boegner. I will continue searching. Therefore I have edited the article as follows:

Several authors have written that French Protestant Leader Marc Boegner interviewed Laval, who said that the foreign Jews must be handed over to the Germans in order to save the French Jews. “Would you agree that we save their children?”, asked Rev. Boegner . “The children must remain with their parents” was the reply. Laval then asked: “What would you do with the children?” Rev. Boegner answered: “French families will adopt them”. Laval retorted: ”No, not one must remain in France”.

2) As to your "book published by Harvard University Press, which is a gold-plated and copper-bottomed" quotation by Sarah Fishman --- Yet Laval also attempted to prevent Jewish children gaining visas to America, arranged by the American Friends Service Committee. He was not so much committed to expelling Jewish children from America, as making sure they reached Nazi camps. [Fishman, Sarah - The battle for children: World War II, youth crime, and juvenile justice in twentieth-century France (Harvard University Press; 2002), page 73)]

I have page 73 of her book in front of me and these two lines were not researched by her; she indicates this material came from: pages 265-269 of Michael Marrus and Robert Paxton, Vichy France and the Jews, New York: Schocken Books, 1983. Now I have their book in front of me and Marrus and Paxton did not write anything close to what she wrote in her two lines, in fact nowhere in the pages she referenced was: “He was not so much committed to expelling Jewish children from America, as making sure they reached Nazi camps.” (Note whoever wrote this in the Wikipedia article did not mean “expelling Jewish children from America” they meant expelling Jewish children to America.” Notwithstanding that error, the lines lack reliable citation and do not belong in the Laval Article. Sirswindon (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Today I located the original source for the meeting between Boegner and Laval. Now all I need to do is find a copy and translate it from French to English --- which I shall do.

Type : texte imprimé, monographie

Titre(s) : Les Eglises protestantes pendant la guerre et l'occupation [Texte imprimé], actes de l'Assemblée générale du protestantisme français réunie à Nîmes, du 22 au 26 octobre 1945

Publication : Paris : Fédération protestante de France ; Messageries évangéliques ; (Cahors : Impr. de A. Coueslant), 1946

Description matérielle : In-8° (230 x 145), 196 p. 85 fr.

Notice n° : FRBNF34192629 Sirswindon (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Having finally had the opportunity to review the pamphlet from which Rev Boeggner’s “so-called” quotation was recorded, it is clear why serious biographers such as Warner and Cole did not include this in their work. Published in 1946, nowhere in Les Englieses protestantes pendant la guere et l’occupation. Actes de l’assemble generale du protestantisme francais is there any evidence that such a meeting or such a conversation actually took place. Wikipedia requires valid citations before such “hearsay” material is included in an article. Should evidence for the conversation having taken place surface in the future, then the material may be replaced in the article. Sirswindon (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks very strange to me because the statement from Boegner about gardening is printed page 24 of Les clandestins de Dieu, Cimade 1939-1945 Jeanne Merle d'Aubigné, Violette Mouchon, Émile C. Fabre, Labor et Fides, 1989. (1st edition 1968 Fayard Paris). The introduction of this book was actually written by Pasteur Boegner himself. There are a few lines and the rest is printed as a quotation of the report he made at the Nice conference on 24 octobre 1945. Marrus and Paxton quote the same citation and the meeting of 9 September 1942 not only on page 166 but also on page Page 355. Why removing the reference to page 266, the citation of the book is a bit long, but it matches what is on the book. --Anneyh (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the statement with Marc Boegner, Boegner stated himself later that Laval was answering about "gardening", I think this should be in the article. A second source that could help for the statement on US visas: Vichy France and the Jews. Stanford University Press. 1995. p. 266-7. ISBN 9780804724999. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help). --Anneyh (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of the credibility of statements in reliable sources

Dear Sirswindon, your analysis of these statements is relevant, but without attribution to reliable sources, it appears to be WP:Original Research. If you, as you claim, are a scholar of these events/biographies, then it should be very easy for you to add more authoritative views on this topic. Surely there must be sources (in Fench if not English) that provide a more comprehensive analysis of Laval's role in the deportations, different opinions etc. As you see, I have altered the statements so as to clearly indicate that these statements are opinions rather than facts. You can add other published opinions. Please refrain from adding your personal opinions or analysis, unless published by third-party reliable sources. In particular, you can refer to your own publications on the subject, if any. Thank you. - BorisG (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear BorisG, you are right on!!! There are many valid references as to Laval’s role in deportation of non-French Jews to Germany. But as to the so-called conversations between Boegner and Laval, there are none. Fishman references Marrus and Paxton. They in turn Reference Les Eglises. But nowhere in Les Eglises (1946) (which is in French) are the so-called conversations presented – this monograph itself lacks citations, For years, I have tried to verify if the conversation between Boegner and Laval ever took place --- and if it indeed did --- what was said. Every mention, in everything that has been written on this subject, always leads back to Les Eglises. Therefore I have concluded we shall never really know. I agree with Warner --- the author of what is considered to be the most objective biography of Laval --- better to omit this kind of hearsay material and get on with what are FACTS. There are enough negatives written about Lavel, --- we don’t need unproven ones. Sirswindon (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear SirSwindon, if Warner makes this statement, can you qoute him, instead of your own analysis? Please understand that your own analysis cannot be included unless published by third-party reliable sources. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand the article can not include my own analysis; the discussion section may. What I am trying to eliminate is unproven hearsay material which lacks valid citations. Warner's statement to me was in a discussion I had with him back in 1968. (I am now age 87). At that time it was difficult separating fact from fiction. As an aside, I first met Laval’s son-in-law in 1948 when I was attending the University of London. That is when I first became interested in Laval. Sirswindon (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I kind of guessed your age... You may be the oldest wikipedia editor on the block. All the best. I am still wondering, if these statements have been proven unfounded, why nobody published a rebuttal? - BorisG (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Because there were not that many compulsive neurotics around!!!!! Actually, because it was easy for almost everyone to believe the worst about Laval. The French people needed a scapegoat --- Laval received that nomination. Sirswindon (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a Biased Article

This article is an editorial and grossly biased toward a sympathetic view of Laval.

I understand that apparently there are people (such as the author of most of the article) who sympathize with Laval, but their point of view is the only point of view presented in the article. Other viewpoints have been excluded entirely. Blcklbl (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please point out specifically what in the article is biased? Or specifically what opposing viewpoints are missing? For the latter, be sure to provide reliable sources that support those opposing viewpoints. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

By "biased", you of course mean that it doesn't match your own views. "Other viewpoints have been excluded entirely." The article has a neutral viewpoint. This is, of course, unacceptable to those who insist that the subject must be demonized. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Indian

Why does he look Indian? 190.113.103.183 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)