Meanwhile, the Vichy government was tightening the screws on Jews. The commissioner-general for Jewish affairs (Commissaire-général aux questions juives, or CGQJ), headed by Xavier Vallat, had been created in March. On June 1, Vichy issued a law prohibiting the possession, purchase, and sale of arms and ammunition by Jews.86
An internal debate within the Wehrmacht ensued about whether to declare an amnesty for new arms surrenders. The district military administrative counselor (Feldkriegsgerichtsrat) of the military court at Angoulême wrote on June 24 to Mr. Schmeichler, the MBF’s senior military administrative counselor (Oberkriegsgerichtsrat).87 He noted that the surrender decree of June 20, 1940, stated: “This order shall not apply to unusable weapons with sentimental value. [Für Erinnerungswaffen ohne Gebrauchswert gilt diese Verordnung nicht.]” However, the French translation of this sentence stated: “This order shall not apply to weapons with sentimental value that are not in use. [Ce décret ne s’applique pas à des armes souvenirs hors d’usage.]” Because of the mistranslation, many prosecutions had to be dismissed since the defendants believed that the decree did not apply to weapons of sentimental value if they were not being used.
Many people, the counselor continued, missed the original deadline but feared to surrender their arms later because of the penalties. Because of that, the courts in several districts proclaimed a new deadline for the surrender of weapons and granted an amnesty. Out of fairness, prior offenders had to be resentenced. Such a proclamation issued in October 1940 had no effect because the prefect delayed its publication and the new deadline expired in just twenty-four hours. The counselor concluded that the victorious Wehrmacht could afford to issue a new decree and grant amnesty, which would result in the surrender of numerous weapons and a reduction in prosecutions.
Dr. Grohmann, military administrative counselor (Kriegsverwaltungsrat) to the MBF, soundly rejected the proposal in a memorandum dated July 5.88 He doubted that the courts had authority to set surrender deadlines with the promise of amnesty. The twenty-four-hour surrender deadline in the decree of May 10, 1940, was absolutely necessary to protect the advancing troops. Some violators received death sentences that were carried out. Given the death sentences imposed so far, it would be inadvisable a year later to set a new deadline with the promise of an amnesty.
All hell was about to break loose with events that would dramatically increase activities of the Resistance. The German firing squads were about to shoot more French citizens than ever before, above all Jews and alleged Communists. People caught with anti-German propaganda or firearms, or who took steps to oppose the occupation, would be increasingly subject to execution.
1. Warner, Pierre Laval, 428–29; Pierre Laval, The Diary of Pierre Laval (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948), 63.
2. Shirer, Collapse of the Third Republic, 903–11, 919–46.
3. Warner, Pierre Laval, 197.
4. Guéhenno, Diary of the Dark Years, 3.
5. Guillain de Bénouville, The Unknown Warriors, trans. Lawrence G. Blochman (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1949), 8.
6. Michel, Shadow War, 15.
7. Marcel Demnet, response to author’s questionnaire, November 13, 2002.
8. See histoire-en-questions.fr/vichy et occupation/ligne de demarcation/vierzon.html.
9. “Paronnaud Yves,” Mémoire et Espoirs de la Résistance, Association des Amis de la Fondation de la Résistance, www.memoresist.org/resistant/paronnaud-yves/.
10. BA/MA, RW 35/326, Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres, Vorschriften für die Jagdnutzung im Bereich des Chefs der Militärverwaltung in Frankreich, 31. Juli 1940.
11. Lynn H. Nicholas, The Rape of Europa (New York: Random House, 1994), 119–51; see Don and Petie Kladstrup, Wine & War: The French, the Nazis, and the Battle for France’s Greatest Treasure (New York: Random House, 2001).
12. United States v. Goering, 6 Federal Rules Decisions 69, 120 (International Military Tribunal in Session at Nürnberg 1946–47).
13. BA/MA, RW 35/544, Oberkommando des Heeres, Generalstab des Heeres, General-quartiermeister, Sichergestellte Waffen aus Privatbesitz, 11. November 1940.
14. Laub, After the Fall, 78.
15. “À nos adhérents,” in Le Saint-Hubert, organe officiel du Saint-Hubert-Club de France, n°4, 39e année, décembre 1940, 33.
16. “La Detention D’Armes Dans La Region Occupee,” Le Matin, August 13, 1940, 1. Reprinted in issues dated August 27, September 3 and 10.
17. BA/MA, RH 36/430, Erlass des Oberbefehlshabers des Heeres, Chef der Militärverwaltung in Frankreich, über die Verwaltung der Jagdwaffen und Jagdmunition in dem Bereich des Chefs der Militärverwaltung in Frankreich, vom 20. August 1940.
18. BA/MA, RH 36/430, Tagesbefehl Nr. 47 des Bezirkschefs C Qu./Ia in Dijon, 12. Oktober 1940.
19. BA/MA, RW 35/135, Div. Nachschubführer 157, Antrag zu den “Besonderen Anordnungen,” 29. August 1940.
20. BA/MA, RW 35/1195, Tätigkeitsbericht der GFP [Geheimen Feldpolizei] bei den Militärverwaltungen, 21. August 1940.
21. BA/MA, RH 36/430, Tagesbefehl Nr. 22 des Bezirkschefs C, Qu./Ia in Dijon, 22. August 1940.
22. Venner, Armes de la Résistance, 144–46.
23. BA/MA, RW 35/4, Lagebericht des Chefs der Militärverwaltung in Frankreich, Kommandostab, für den Monat August 1940.
24. Humbert, Résistance, 11.
25. BA/MA, RW 35/1196, Besondere Anordnungen Nr. 32, Chef der Militärverwaltung, Bezirk A, 2. September 1940.
26. BA/MA, RW 35/1196, Besondere Anordnungen Nr. 33, Chef der Militärverwaltung, Bezirk A, 3. September 1940.
27. BA/MA, RH 36/565, Bericht des Chefs des Militärverwaltungsbezirks Paris, Kommandostab, Stabsoffizier der Feldgendarmerie, Tgb. Nr. 51/40 betreffend Genehmigung zum Waffenbesitz, 12. September 1940.
28. BA/MA, RH 36/565, Monatsbericht des Chefs des Militärverwaltungsbezirks Paris, Kommandostab, Stabsoffizier der Feldgendarmerie, Paris, 21. September 1940.
29. BA/MA, RW 35/1196, Lagebericht für die Zeit vom 21. August bis 4. September 1940, Militärverwaltungsbezirk A, St. Germain, 8. September 1940.
30. BA/MA, RW 35/1254, Lagebericht September 1940, Chef des Militärverwaltungsbezirks B, Südwestfrankreich, Gericht, 22. September 1940.
31. BA/MA, RW 35/1254, Durchschrift für den Chef des Kommandostabes, 20. September 1940.
32. BA/MA, RW 35/4, Lagebericht des Chefs der Militärverwaltung in Frankreich, Kommandostab, für den Monat September 1940.
33. Journal Official, no. 9, September 30, 1940, 92, cited in Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), 1:984; available at https://archive.org/stream/naziconspiracyag01unit/naziconspiracyag01unit_djvu.txt.
34. Guéhenno, Diary of the Dark Years, 28–29 (entries for October 19 and 24, 1940).
35. Roy P. Porter, Uncensored France (New York: Dial Press, 1942), 10–11.
36. BA/MA, RW 35/1198, Lagebericht für den Zeitraum vom 20. September bis 20. Oktober 1940, St. Germain, 20. Oktober 1940.
37. BA/MA, RW 35/1198, Lagebericht für Zeitraum vom 21. September. bis 20. October 1940, Chef der Militärverwaltung A, St. Germain, 24. Oktober 1940.
38. BA/MA, RW 35/1198, Lage- und Tätigkeitsbericht für die Zeit vom 12. September 1940 bis 12. Oktober 1940, Militärverwaltungsbezirk A, Tgb. Nr. 796/40, 21. Oktober 1940.
39. BA MA, RW 35/1258, Ic Lagebericht für die Zeit vom 21. September bis 20. Oktober 1940, Chef des Militärverwaltungsbezirks B, 23. Oktober 1940.
40. BA/MA, RW 35/1258, Lagebericht, Chef des Militärverwaltungsbezirks B, Südwestfrankreich, Gericht, 23. Oktober 1940.
41. Laub, After the Fall, 43.
42. Allan Mitchell, Nazi Paris: The History of an Occupation, 1940–1944 (New York: Berghahn Books, 2010), 6, 42.
43. Laub, After the Fall, 65.
44. BA/MA, RW 35/4, Lagebericht des Militärbefehlshabers in Frankreich, Kommandostab, für den Monat Oktober 1940.
45. BA/MA, RH 36/565, Lage- und Tätigkeitsbericht des Chefs d
es Militärverwaltungsbezirks Paris, Kommandostab, Stabsoffizier der Feldgendarmerie, für die Zeit vom 13. Oktober bis 12. November 1940, 19. November 1940.
46. BA/MA, RW 35/1199, Lagebericht für den Zeitraum vom 20. Oktober bis 20. November 1940, Chef der Militärverwaltung A, 21. November 1940.
47. BA/MA, RW 35/1258, Ic Lagebericht für die Zeit vom 21. Oktober bis 20. November 1940, Chef des Militärverwaltungsbezirks B, Südwestfrankreich, Gericht.
48. BA/MA, RW 35/1258, Lage- und Tätigkeitsbericht, Chef des Militärverwaltungsbezirks B, Südwestfrankreich, 21. Dezember 1940.
49. BA/MA, RH 36/565, Lage- und Tätigkeitsbericht des Chefs des Militärverwaltungsbezirks Paris, Kommandostab, Stabsoffizier der Feldgendarmerie, Tgb. Nr. 454/40. für die Zeit vom 13. November bis 12. Dezember 1940, 19. Dezember 1940.
50. BA/MA, RW 35/1257, Der Chef des Militärverwaltungsbezirks B, 21. November 1940.
51. BA/MA, RW 35/1256, Der Chef des Militärverwaltungsbezirks B, 18. Dezember 1940.
52. BA/MA, RW 35/4, Lagebericht für die Monate Dezember 1940 und Januar 1941.
53. Henri Noguères, Histoire de la Résistance : La Première Année, Juin 1940 - Juin 1941 (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1967), 1:162.
54. Anny Latour, The Jewish Resistance in France (1940–1944) (New York: Holocaust Library, 1970), 24. The author made arms deliveries for the resistance (p. 10).
55. Venner, Armes de la Résistance, 130, 143; Garry James, “French Model 1873 Revolver,” American Rifleman, November 2012, 120.
56. de Bénouville, Unknown Warriors, 13, 16, 18.
57. Simone de Beauvoir, The Prime of Life, trans. Peter Green (New York: Lancer Books, 1966), 511 (entry dated December 8, 1940), 570 (entry dated December 28, 1940).
58. Guéhenno, Diary of the Dark Years, 58.
59. BA/MA, RW 35/1260, Chef des Militärverwaltungsbezirks B, Südwestfrankreich, 15. Januar 1941.
60. Michel, Shadow War, 258.
61. BA/MA, RW 35/286, 1941 Militärbefehlshaber in Frankreich, Lagebericht Dezember 1940 / Januar 1941, 31 Januar.1941.
62. BA/MA, RW 35/1201, Lagebericht für den Zeitraum vom 15. November 1940 bis 15. Januar 1941, Chef der Militärverwaltung A, 16. Januar 1941.
63. BA/MA, RW 35/1260, Chef des Militärverwaltungsbezirks B, Südwestfrankreich, Gericht, 16. Januar 1941.
64. BA/MA, RW 35/1261, Chef des Militärverwaltungsbezirks B, Südwestfrankreich, Gericht, 19. Januar 1941.
65. BA/MA, RW 35/1261, Chef des Militärverwaltungsbezirks B, Südwestfrankreich, 22. Februar 1941.
66. BA/MA, RW 35/5, Lagebericht, Februar 1941.
67. Musée de l’Ordre de la Libération in Paris, exhibit #408 (on display April 2006).
68. BA/MA, RW 35/1203, Lagebericht für den Zeitraum vom 16. Februar bis 15. März 1941, Chef der Militärverwaltung A, 18. März 1941.
69. BA/MA, RW 35/1256, Der Chef des Militärverwaltungsbezirks B, 19. März 1941.
70. Juan Maler [Reinhard Kops], Frieden, Krieg und “Frieden” (Buenos Aires: J. Maler, 1987), 88. After the war, Kops escaped to Argentina and lived under the pseudonym “Juan Maler.”
71. Maler [Kops], Frieden, Krieg und “Frienden,” 89.
72. BA/MA, RW 35/624, Der Minister, Staatssekretär der nationalen Wirtschaft und Finanzen ; Betr.: Beschlagnahme der Privatpersonen gehörenden Waffen und Munitionen, Paris, 24. März 1941.
73. Hague Convention, Article 53 (October 18, 1907).
74. BA/MA, RW 35/624, Militärbefehlshaber in Frankreich; Betreffend Entschädigung für sichergestellte Schusswaffen, Paris, 17. April 1941.
75. BA/MA, RW 35/5, Lagebericht März 1941.
76. BA/MA, RW 35/1205, Lage- und Tätigkeitsbericht für die Zeit vom 13. April bis 12. Mai 1941, Militärverwaltungsbezirk A, Tgb. Nr. 1131/41, 20. Mai 1941.
77. “1947: Fernand de Brinon, Vichy minister with a Jewish wife,” April 15, 2008, www.executedtoday.com/2008/04/15/1947-fernand-de-brinon-vichy-minister-with-a-jewish-wife/; “NBC Tells France,” Time, May, 26, 1941, www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765661,00.html.
78. “Après l’arrestation à Paris d’auteurs d’attentats contre l’armée d’occupation,” Le Temps, April 25/26, 1941, 1. Also in “Apres l’arrestation des terroristes a Paris,” Le Figaro, April 25/26, 1941, 1.
79. Porter, Uncensored France, 67.
80. Humbert, Résistance, 23, 36.
81. Noël Créau, ancien président national, Amicales des Anciens Parachutistes S.A.S. et des Anciens Commandos de la France Libre, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France, letter to author, February 4, 2002. For more details on Noël Créau, see www.francaislibres.net/liste/fiche.php?index=62760.
82. Frenay, Night Will End, 73.
83. Pryce-Jones, Paris in the Third Reich, 118.
84. BA/MA, RW 35/624, Verwaltung der Jagdwaffenlager, Militärbefehlshaber in Frankreich, Paris, 20. Mai 1941.
85. BA/MA, RW 35/1275, Tagesbefehl Nr. 60 des Militärverwaltungsbezirks C, Nordostfrankreich, 21. Mai 1941.
86. Loi N°2181 du 1er juin 1941, J.O., 6 juin 1941.
87. BA/MA, RW 35/544, Gericht der Feldkommandantur 540, Aussenstelle Angoulême, Vorschläge hinsichtlich der Verordnung über Waffenbesitz im besetzten Gebiet, 24. Juni 1941.
88. BA/MA, RW 35/544, Militärbefehlshaber in Frankreich, Verwaltungsstab, Abteilung Verwaltung, Verordung über den Waffenbesitz im besetzten Gebiet vom 10. Mai 1940, 5. Juli 1941.
5
Weapons Possession
The Core of Criminal Activities of the French
ON JUNE 22, 1941, Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, the blitzkrieg against his former ally—Soviet Russia. “The French experienced great happiness,” observed Jean Guéhenno, “at least this time Hitler would be busy for a while…. For the first time Hitlerlian fanaticism is going to come up against another fanaticism.”1
After the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, the French Communist Party had been friendly to Nazi Germany and was banned by the French government. When Germany occupied France in 1940, the party appealed to the Germans to legalize it, but the French police arrested its delegates. Now that the Soviet Union was being attacked, Stalin ordered the European Communist parties to oppose the Nazis.2 French Communists demonstrated in Paris in July and August, but as Pierre Daix wrote, “We had no arms and no training…. We were obliged to improvise lodgings, arms, everything.”3
At a meeting at the Führer Headquarters on July 16, recorded by Martin Bormann, Hitler alluded to “an assertion made in an impudent Vichy newspaper that the war against the Soviet Union was Europe’s war,” implying that “all European states ought to benefit from it.” While the German motives would not be made public, they would pretend that they were “forced to occupy, administer and secure” a certain area, while still taking “all necessary measures—shooting, resettling, etc.” In reality, their occupation of each area was “first, to dominate it; second, to administer it; and third, to exploit it.”4
“Exterminate Everyone Who Opposes Us”
Hitler welcomed the Russian order for partisan warfare, Bormann’s notes continued, as “it enables us to exterminate everyone who opposes us.” He added, “Our iron principle must be and must remain: We must never permit anybody but the Germans to carry arms!” He reiterated that they would not “enlist the armed support of foreign, subjugated nations…. Only the German may carry arms … !” Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel added, “The inhabitants had to understand that anybody who did not perform his duties properly would be shot, and that they would be held responsible for every offense.” Although most of his tirade focused on the East, the same policies, albeit less harsh, were applied in France.
Jean Guéhenno saw evidence of that when he made a Sunday visit with friends at the Vallée-aux-Loups (Valley of the Wolves), a beautiful park outside Paris: “I learn today that in the depths of this very peaceful park, the Germans shoot people who have been sentenced by their courts martial—most recently a young Frenchman accused of Gaullism and a young German aviator who had lingered three days to
o long with his mistress.”5
Simone de Beauvoir noted that “the yellow-and-red ‘Warning’ notices succeeded each other ever more rapidly on the tiled walls of the Métro.” In July, a proclamation warned that reprisals would now include the “terrorists’ families: their closest male relations would be shot, their wives deported, and their children interned.” Yet the killings on both sides and acts of sabotage did not slow.6
That may have been true at the time, but reprisal executions against violent attacks directed at Germans would have a dissuasive effect. As time went on, resistance groups stopped attacking members of the Wehrmacht and turned their attention to French collaborators.
District A at Saint-Germain reported numerous cases of illegal weapons possession, mostly hunting guns, many of which were useless. Prison sentences of over five years would be served in Germany. An armed poacher was shot to death. Hunting offenses had grown, probably due to minimal meat rations.7
“We have no problems with the French gendarmes. They do their best to meet our requirements,” noted a report from District B at Angers. Cooperation with the police had improved, but they are not tough enough on traffic offenders. There were sixty-seven cases of illegal weapons possession in the two months ending on July 11.8 A Monsieur Martin was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, and six others were imprisoned for concealing the crime. And a Madam Renaudeau got four months for telling a soldier to drop his waist belt and making the move of cutting his throat while declaring “Hitler is kaputt.”9
Obviously, liberal sentences could be imposed for having a gun or insulting the Führer. Some occupation authorities understood that extreme sentences would only increase resistance. But more vicious repression would increase later when Germany experienced losses in the war.
It seems that gun dealers were remiss in surrendering their inventories. The search of a weapons dealer in Paris yielded pistols, barrels for hunting rifles, handgun parts, magazines, and hunting and pistol ammunition. It was assumed that other dealers did not surrender all of their weapons either, necessitating that the military police, with support from the French police, conduct a search of gun dealers.10 A French police raid on illegal gun dealers netted thirty-six arrests.11
Gun Control in Nazi Occupied-France Page 12
