by Matthew Cobb
48 Galassi (1996).
49 Roy (1944), p. 32.
50 Bidault continued: ‘Soon, the Allies will be in Paris, welcomed by a victorious Parisian population. General de Gaulle and the Provisional Government of the French Republic will be received by the Conseil National de la Résistance, and, after so much pain and sadness, we will rebuild, with joy and pride, a great people that is strong, independent and just. Vive la France!’ (Crénesse, 1944, pp. 18–20). Pierre Audiat was enthused by the sounds of the Resistance radio: ‘Its broadcasts were marked by the sounds of explosions and gunfire, and nothing was more striking than hearing the speeches of Resistance leaders against a backdrop improvised by the sound of battle’ (Audiat, 1946, p. 318).
51 Radio technician Pierre Schaeffer wrote later: ‘The sound of gunfire punctuated his sentences, breaking the silences, forming a magnificent counterpoint to his words. People thought we’d faked it. That was pretty annoying.’ (Campaux, 1945, p. 139).
52 Bobkowski (1991), p. 612.
53 Thomas (1995), p. 213. Thomas tempered her view later that day, writing a poem, ‘Paris is fighting’, which expresses precisely the opposite sentiments (Thomas, 1995, pp. 214–215). There is a translation by Kaufmann (2004), p. 115:
Paris is no longer a tart with makeup
Who waits for her client in a doorway
Paris is no longer a whore
Who opens her legs
Paris is fighting.
The poem concludes (my translation):
Paris is fighting
To the sound of the song of the poplar trees
And under the blue wings of pigeons in flight
Tanks against the fists
Tanks against the bare chests
Tanks against the will
Of these men who have risen up from the paving-stones
Shouting
Liberty
– Oh death which will end this wild life
Oh death which will not end our freedom.
54 Guéhenno (2002), pp. 436–7.
55 de Saint Pierre (1945), p. 84.
56 Roy (1944), pp. 37–8.
57 Model & Bradley (1991), p. 262.
58 Model & Bradley (1991), p. 264; Müller (1994), p. 110.
59 Warlimont (1964), p. 636, n. 9, ETHINT 1, p. 43. This shows that despite the suggestion by Collins & Lapierre (1965), pp. 58–9, Hitler intended the mortar to be used primarily against the Allied armies, not against the Resistance or the population of Paris.
60 Warlimont (1964), p. 636, n. 9; Schramm (1982), p. 349; ETHINT 1, p. 43; Crémieux (1971), pp. 183–4. Collins & Lapierre (1965) describe (pp. 58–9–see also the photograph after p. 128) what they claim was the weapon Hitler wanted to deploy in Paris – the massive ‘Karl’ siege mortar, which fired 54 or 60 cm shells (von Senger und Etterlin, 1969, plates 247 and 248). This is wrong. According to Warlimont in 1945 (Crémieux, 1971, pp. 183–4) the weapon Hitler commanded to the French capital was not the Karl, but a 38 cm Sturmtiger mortar, and it was to be used to defend the city. At the time of the Paris insurrection there were only three production models of the Sturmtiger in existence, two of which were being used in Warsaw. According to Collins & Lapierre (1965), pp. 200 and 221, the siege mortar was stuck on the railway line at Soissons, 100 km north-east of Paris. There is no evidence for this (Warlimont recalled it was ‘lost somewhere in Germany’ – ETHINT 1, p. 43), but whatever the case, neither the Sturmtiger nor the Karl was used in France.
61 von Choltitz (1969), p. 246. This is the only source for this story.
62 Model & Bradley (1991), p. 261.
63 Model & Bradley (1991), p. 262.
64 Delarue (1964), pp. 355–6.
65 Crémieux-Brilhac (2010), p. 300.
66 New York Times 25 August 1944.
67 NA CAB/65/42/26, p. 292; Crémieux-Brilhac (1976), pp. 202–204; the telegram is reproduced in de Gaulle (1956), p. 708.
68 New York Times 24 August 1944.
69 Nordling (2002), p. 136. Von Choltitz (1949, 1969) makes no reference to this conversation, which may be imaginary.
70 Domenach-Lallich (2001), pp. 146–7.
71 Schrijvers (2009), p. 44.
72 Dansette (1946), p. 331; Crémieux-Brilhac (2010), pp. 300–301; Bleustein-Blanchet (1984), pp. 269–73. Collins & Lapierre (1965), p. 204, suggests that the ‘monumental hoax’ was perpetrated by Colonel André Vernon of the FFI in London. There is no evidence for this, and I can find no reference to a Colonel Vernon. Neiberg (2012), p 204, suggests that a mistranslation by an ‘overeager BBC reporter’ of ‘Cité’ – the island where the Préfecture is situated – was at the origin of the event. But the Parisians heard the announcement in French on the Free French BBC programmes and would have been in no doubt – the only reference to ‘Cité’ is in ‘l’Ile de la Cité’. Whatever the case, the remainder of the French statement, cited above, was clearly designed to deceive.
73 de Gaulle (1956), p. 303.
74 The New York Times published a brief article blaming the announcement on an ‘error in translation’ (New York Times 25 August 1944). Koenig’s staff in London tried to straighten out the mess and work out exactly what had happened; they too noted that the Boris statement did not actually say that Paris had been liberated, and that this was an interpretation by the BBC (ML EMFFI).
75 Dubois (1944), p. 76.
76 Boegner (1992), pp. 290–1.
77 Auroy (2008), p. 329. This entry was written in the morning of 24 August.
78 Bood (1974), p. 331.
79 de Saint-Pierre (1945), p. 82.
80 BAM VV, 23.8.
81 Tuffrau (2002), p. 98. This entry was written in the morning of 24 August.
82 Guéhenno (2002), p. 437. This entry was written in the morning of 24 August.
83 Campaux (1945), p. 130. Simone de Beauvoir gives a far briefer account of the same event; Sartre’s friend would appear to have been the playwright Armand Salacrou (de Beauvoir, 1965, p. 596).
84 www.gastoneve.org.uk/paris.html [accessed November 2011].
85 AN 72AJ/61/I/17, p. 33.
86 Bradley (1951), p. 392.
87 See Jacobs (n.d.), pp. 27–8 and chapter 11.
88 Lyon (1948), pp. 14–17; Longden (2009), p. 33.
89 Collins & Lapierre (1965), p. 192. Nordling (2002), pp. 144–6 has a similar description of the passage through the lines, but makes no mention of Bender leaving the group and returning to Paris. However, Nordling later reports that Bender was in Paris on the evening of 24 August, and played a vital role in negotiating the surrender of von Choltitz the next day, so he must have left Rolf Nordling’s group at some point (pp. 151–3).
90 Nordling (2002), pp. 143–7. No source is given for Nordling’s account (he was not present); presumably his brother told him what happened.
91 Blumenson (1996), p. 525.
92 Beevor (2009), p. 494 reproduces the notes taken by Major General Gilbert Cook during the conversation with Patton.
93 Lankford (1991), p. 170.
94 Dansette (1946), pp. 341–2; Fournier & Eymard (2009), p. 34.
95 Lankford (1991), p. 168; Fournier & Eymard (2009), p. 32 – this page and the following include maps, quotes and pictures of the incident. The area where the event took place has been completely redeveloped; the road is a dual carriageway and the surrounding area is typical of the soulless outskirts of many French towns – chain restaurants, advertising hoardings and builders’ merchants.
96 Fournier & Eymard (2009), p. 32. Paul Rondeau, the radio operator, was killed outright; driver Louis Rink and Moïse Jardin, the loader, were severely wounded and died the next day.
97 A colourful account of the scene is given in Beevor & Cooper (2004), pp. 42–3. See also Lankford (1991), p. 169. Bruce and Ernest Hemingway, who was still hanging about Rambouillet, were questioned by Leclerc and asked to pass on their intelligence to the 2e DB intelligence officer. According to Hemingway, Leclerc closed their discussion by saying, ‘Buzz off, you u
nspeakables’ (Baker, 1972, p. 629); Bruce’s description of the encounter does not contain any intimation of such hostility.
98 de Gaulle (1956), pp. 302–303.
99 Dronne (1970), p. 267.
100 For striking descriptions of the chaotic progress of the Leclerc column, see the various personal accounts in Fournier & Eymard (2009), pp. 34–6.
101 Dubois (1944), pp. 79–80.
CHAPTER 13
1 Cumberlege (1946), pp. 189–90.
2 Campaux (1945), p. 139.
3 AN 72AJ/62/III/4, p. 41.
4 BAM VV, 24.8.
5 Touche (1946), p. 100.
6 Cazaux (1975), p. 181. Cazaux’s Free French counter-intelligence contact, Colonel Gérar-Dubot, later received the OBE from the British (NA WO 373/153, p. 897).
7 Roy (1944), p. 41.
8 Boegner (1992), p. 291.
9 Breton (1964), p. 150.
10 ML Vigne, p. 5.
11 Castetbon (2004), pp. 158–61.
12 Dubois (1944), p. 81.
13 The letter read in part: ‘You will soon join your Hun friends, along with your yid of a wife.’
14 Grunberg (2001), pp. 348–9.
15 Campaux (1945), pp. 143–4.
16 Castetbon (2004), pp. 142–5.
17 AN 72AJ/61/I/14, p. 5.
18 Boegner (1992), p. 292.
19 Touche (1946), p. 101.
20 AN 72AJ/62/I/4, p. 12.
21 AN 72AJ/62/I/4, p. 8.
22 Bourget (1984), p. 365.
23 Tuffrau (2002), p. 98.
24 Massiet (1945), pp. 182–3.
25 Massiet (1945), p. 185.
26 A few weeks later, Gallois wrote that Leclerc did not yet have his artillery with him. The price of the mad race towards Paris by the tanks and armoured vehicles was that the slow-moving artillery batteries were still some way behind, while the foul weather prevented the use of either spotter planes or air strikes (AN 72AJ/61/I/17, pp. 35–6).
27 de Gaulle (1970), p. 296.
28 Fournier & Eymard (2009), pp. 61–73.
29 de Boissieu (1981), pp. 249–50. To prove that he was who he said he was, Luizet pointed out that he and Leclerc had been in the same year at the military academy at Saint Cyr, and they had neighbouring beds in the dormitory.
30 de Boissieu (1981), p. 251. De Boissieu heard Petit-Leroy’s conversation with Leclerc, and wrote these words down that evening in the Division’s log book. In his memoirs, de Boissieu drew attention to this fact and justified his quotation in these terms: ‘I am therefore quite certain that these are the exact words that were used’ (de Boissieu, 1981, p. 252). It seems unlikely that this part of the message came from Chaban, who had a more nuanced and realistic view of the role – potential and actual – of the Communist Party.
31 de Boissieu (1981), p. 252. De Boissieu claimed that the letter was found on Petit-Leroy’s body and was communicated to the German Parisian command, and that this was stated in von Choltitz’s memoirs. Von Choltitz wrote: ‘In the afternoon I was asked on the telephone if I would be prepared to accept a letter from the enemy forces which would call on me to surrender the city. I declined this offer, stating that it was not my habit to exchange letters with enemy generals before the end of the fighting.’ (Von Choltitz, 1969, pp. 248–9.) This may refer to the letter carried by Petit-Leroy.
32 Kriegel-Valrimont (1964), p. 218.
33 Kriegel-Valrimont (1964), pp. 218–220.
34 Kriegel-Valrimont (1964), p. 219. According to Kriegel-Valrimont, Chaban’s suggestion was dismissed by de Vogüé, who insisted that COMAC should maintain its status as a Resistance organisation.
35 Courtin (1994), p. 41. Courtin was referring to the Préfecture de Police opposite Notre Dame, and not the Préfecture de la Seine, in the offices of which worked Yves Cazaux, and which were situated in the Hôtel de Ville. According to Victor Veau, in the early evening ‘the Secretary-Generals have been summoned to the Hôtel de Ville to receive a group of soldiers from Leclerc’s army which will arrive in the evening.’ (BAM VV, 24.8.) It seems that Veau got his wires crossed on this occasion.
36 AN 72AJ/42/IV/3, p. 27.
37 Crénesse (1944), pp. 21–7.
38 BAM VV, 24.8.
39 Auroy (2008), p. 330.
40 Tuffrau (2002), pp. 100–1.
41 Massiet (1945), pp. 193–4.
42 de Saint-Pierre (1945), p. 85.
43 Rol-Tanguy & Bourderon (1994), pp. 277–8. There is no record of this penalty having been put into practice.
44 AN 72AJ/62/III/4, p. 43.
45 Zervos (1963), p. 23; Penrose (1962), p. 313; Nash (1998), pp. 36–7; Newman (1999). The painting was in Picasso’s personal collection until his death; its current location is unknown. A lithograph was made of the painting in the 1950s and can be seen, for example, at the National Gallery of Australia and on its website, under the title La Bacchanale (cs.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=115972 [accessed July 2012]). There is a photograph of Picasso with the painting, shortly after the liberation, in Barr (1945), p. 9. The painting was begun in Marie-Thérèse Walter’s apartment on the Ile Saint-Louis, and completed on 28 August in Picasso’s studio on the rue des Grands-Augustins (Galassi, 1996, p. 94). Historians of art have conflicting views as to where the work was created: Penrose (1962) is unclear; Newman (1999) considers it was painted in the Ile Saint-Louis apartment (p. 110), Gilot (1964) is ambiguous, but may imply she thought it was painted in the Saint-Louis apartment (p. 55).
46 Newman (1999) provides a perceptive description of the painting, although her political analysis is not shared by all scholars (e.g. Fitzgerald, 1996). Galassi (1996), pp. 94–6, focuses on its relation to Poussin’s original and its place in the major shift in Picasso’s artistic orientation that occurred in the post-war years. Picasso’s friend and biographer, Roland Penrose, described the painting in these terms: ‘Its spirit of ritualistic abandon in an Arcadian setting was in keeping with his optimistic mood. Retaining the essentials of the composition and the movement of the ring of dancers, he reinterpreted the figures with freedom and gave the colour a gaiety which makes Poussin’s revellers look demure.’ Penrose (1962), p. 313. Also shown in the painting were Picasso’s lover, Françoise Gilot, a nude dancing figure reaching out to a drunken Pan, and a stylised self-portrait in which Picasso offered a basket of red fruit (tomatoes?) to another dancing figure. Daix (1994), p. 273; Newman (1999).
47 Pudney (1944a), p. 183.
48 A-956, p. 15.
49 Renoult & West (2009), p. 166.
50 Renoult & West (2009), pp. 164 and 180.
51 Krancke’s message is reproduced in Renoult & West (2009), p. 186.
52 It is not clear when they were actually destroyed, or how many warheads there were. In 1967, General Koenig promised Adrien Dansette that he would provide an official wartime report of what was done with the torpedoes, but there is no indication that he did this (AN 72AJ/61/II/2).
53 von Choltitz (1969), p. 248.
54 von Choltitz (1969), pp. 246–7; Jay (n.d.), p. 76.
55 Martens & Nagel (2006), p. 523.
56 L’Humanité 24 August 1944.
57 Campaux (1945), p. 250.
58 Bourget (1984), p. 367.
59 Fournier & Eymard (2009), pp. 44–9. This includes maps and many striking photographs of the aftermath.
60 All information in this paragraph from MacVane (1979), pp. 284–5.
61 Pyle (1944), p. 315.
62 Massu (1969), p. 146.
63 Lankford (1991), p. 171.
64 Lankford (1991), p. 171.
65 Pudney (1944b). A vivandière is a camp-follower, authorised to supply the troops with food and drink.
CHAPTER 14
1 Féron (1945), p. 48.
2 Blumenson (1961), p. 614.
3 Blumenson (1961), p. 614.
4 de Boissieu (1981), p. 249, n. 1.
5 Blumenson (1961), p. 614.
6 The slow-flying Piper Cub was extremely vulnerable to enemy fi
re. In the late afternoon another Cub was shot down over Versailles; the pilot survived, but the observer was killed (Renoult & West, 2009, p. 163).
7 For Callet’s account, see Fournier & Eymard (2009), pp. 90–3; Noguères & Delgiame-Fouché (1981), p. 538. Dufresne claims that he personally received this message, through his chief of the southern sector, who got it via ‘a carrier pigeon’ (Massiet, 1945, p. 188 – this also includes a reproduction of the message). There is a plaque commemorating the event on the wall of the Préfecture de Police, on the corner of the quai du Marché Neuf.
8 Dronne (1970), p. 280.
9 Dronne (1970), pp. 280–1. Amazingly, the scene in Antony when Leclerc instructed Dronne to head for Paris, and the moment that the column headed off, were all captured on film by local residents – see Fournier & Eymard (2009), pp. 127–9. See also Plate 23.
10 Levisse-Touzé (2007); Mesquida (2011), pp. 117–18. Four half-tracks were named after civil war battles – Santander, Guadalajara, Teruel, Brunete – and one was named after a Republican leader, Admiral Buiza (Fournier & Eymard, 2009, pp. 128–9). As a compromise, one 2e DB half-track was called ‘Les Pingouins’ (‘The Penguins’), because its original name – ‘Durruti’, after a Spanish anarchist leader – was rejected by the Spanish communist soldiers (Levisse-Touzé, 2007, p. 173).
11 Dronne’s command jeep was originally called ‘Mort Aux Cons’ (‘Death To Twats’). Leclerc was not impressed and initially ordered Dronne to remove the slogan before resigning himself to asking: ‘Why do you want to kill them all?’ The original jeep was destroyed in Normandy, and Dronne could not recall whether he had had the name painted onto its replacement. However, he pointed out that even if it had been on the front of the vehicle, it would not have been visible as the windscreen was folded down, covering the area where the words would have been written (Dronne, 1970, p. 283).
