Eleven Days in August

by Matthew Cobb

  66 Courdesses (1994), pp. 302–303. The figure of seven tanks is given by Fournier & Aymard (2009), p. 142, on the basis of close examination of the photographic evidence of destroyed and captured tanks.

  67 A photograph of the flag can be seen in Fournier & Aymard (2010), p. 3. By the next day, the flag had been suspended from the roof of the arch.

  68 Lankford (1991), p. 173.

  69 Fournier & Aymard (2010), p. 21.

  70 Fournier & Aymard (2010) pp. 16–25 present an exhaustive account of this confrontation, using frame-by-frame analysis of cine film, detailed maps and memoirs. Courdesses (1994), p. 303, gives a slightly different time-course, in which Bizien’s tank made the first strike.

  71 The soldiers were accompanied by Gisèle Hasseler, Chaban’s secretary who had been helping de la Horie find his way round Paris, and who had been allowed by Billotte to join the attack – Dunan (1945), pp. 323–7. Gisèle’s apparently unlikely involvement in the attack on the Meurice was mentioned in dispatches by Billotte two days later – the citation concludes: ‘During this dangerous attack, she showed calm, sang-froid and a complete disregard for danger; such qualities that even the bravest of men must recognise them.’ (Dunan, 1945, p. 327.)

  72 Jay (n.d.), pp. 86–7. Von Choltitz (1969) p. 253 provides a simpler, but essentially identical, account.

  73 von Choltitz recalls that the first person to enter his office was a civilian FFI fighter, who was ‘haggard and excited’ (von Choltitz, 1969, p. 253). The man was so excited that he asked the non sequitur ‘Herr General, sprechen Sie Deutsch?’ – Karcher then grabbed the civilian by the collar and threw him out (p. 254). Fournier & Aymard (2010), p. 59 report the suggestion that this man was a Spaniard, Antonio Gutierrez. Jay (n.d.) denies that there was a civilian, but states that the first man they saw was ‘a laughable figure’ (p. 88). Von Arnim says Karcher entered with a man wearing an FFI armband (von Arnim, 1995, p. 251). Dansette (1946), pp. 377–8, does not mention any civilian, and reports that Karcher asked the more reasonable question: ‘Does the General speak French?’ Jay recognised de la Horie: the two men had met at pre-war equestrian events (Jay, n.d., p. 89).

  74 Fournier & Aymard (2010), p. 36. See also the astonishing photographs on pp. 37–41. During the surrender, a German adjudant collapsed to the floor and can be seen in photographs, apparently dead. It is not known whether he was already wounded, or whether he was shot after surrendering, or indeed if he was dead.

  75 Kent (1947), p. 210.

  76 The time is given on contemporary photographs (Fournier & Aymard, 2010, p. 41).

  77 Lankford (1991), pp. 173–4.

  78 Bood (1974), p. 336.

  79 Bood (1974), p. 336.

  80 Roskothen (1977), p. 304. According to a widely circulated story, the gunner was ordered to ‘beware of the 5th column’ – that is, ‘5th columnist’ snipers. He misunderstood and destroyed the fifth column of the central part of the building, counting from the right.

  81 Cumberlege (1946), p. 193.

  82 Bourget (1984), p. 372.

  83 Touche (1946), pp. 106–113. In the wall of the Tuileries at the end of the rue de Rivoli there are plaques to the memory of Madeleine Brinet, Jean-Claude Touche, Marcel Bizien and seven others who were killed in the fighting.

  84 Roskothen, who had been appointed as an intermediary, was taken to the Préfecture in an armoured car, and returned with von Choltitz’s surrender order. This can be seen at around 17:00 in La Libération de Paris (1944). Roskothen (1977), pp. 306–7; Bourget (1984), pp. 376–7.

  CHAPTER 16

  1 Pyle (1944), p. 312.

  2 Dansette (1946), p. 382.

  3 Kriegel-Valrimont’s attire can be seen in the colour film of von Choltitz arriving at the Gare Montparnasse, shot by George Stevens and visible at 17:45 on the DVD D-Day to Berlin (1998). In 2004, Edgard Pisani recalled how he had seen Chaban and François Mitterrand talking outside the billiard room, and got the impression that this was the first time the two men had met (Les Témoins de la Libération de Paris, 2004, 39:30). There is no way of knowing if this actually happened – I have come across no evidence that Mitterrand was in the building at this time. According to Dansette (1946), p. 381, before von Choltitz was brought into the room, General Barton and ‘some US officers’ came in, and then left, telling Lecerc that ‘You should be alone in Paris at this time.’ No other source –including those written by the participants – describes this. Strikingly, Bradley (1951) makes no mention of this at all (p. 392). Indeed, Bradly mistakenly states that the surrender took place at Montparnasse, not at the Préfecture. It seems extremely unlikely that Bradley either came into the room, or uttered these words.

  4 Goglin & Roux (2004), p. 182.

  5 There is a photograph of a rather disconsolate von Choltitz sitting at a small cluttered desk, signing a paper with two soldiers on either side, one smiling, the other looking at what he is writing (e.g. Fournier & Eymard, 2010, p. 110). This is often presented either as the signature of the surrender order to his troops, or even of the surrender itself. According to the man on the left in the photograph – the 2e DB translator, Captain Alfred Betz – von Choltitz was in fact writing a letter requesting that his personal effects be returned to him (Bourget, 1984, p. 379).

  6 AN 72AJ/61/I/17, p. 40.

  7 von Choltitz was not consulted over Rol’s signature, nor was his copy of the surrender amended. All details in these paragraphs are from Dansette (1946), pp. 383–6; Bourderon (2004), p. 453–4; Kriegel-Valrimont (1964), pp. 222–3. Before the surrender was signed in the Préfecture, von Choltitz objected to the final clause, which stated that any soldiers who continued to fight after the order to surrender had been transmitted would be treated as outside the laws of war. The German commander rightly pointed out that there could be soldiers fighting in Paris who had arrived as reinforcements and were not under his command, and therefore could not be expected to follow his orders. This was accepted by Leclerc. A photograph of the amended surrender document can be found in Rol-Tanguy & Bourderon (1994), p. 289. According to Dansette, Rol demanded to sign the document. However, in Bourderon (2004), Rol claims it was Valrimont’s idea; Kriegel-Valrimont also states that it was he who raised the issue, although he situates the whole discussion at the Préfecture. It seems most likely that the razor-sharp political mind of Valrimont would have grasped the potential significance of Rol’s signature.

  8 This point is made by Blumenson (1961), p. 618.

  9 AN 72AJ/61/I/17, p. 40.

  10 AN 72AJ/61/II/2. Koenig’s 1965 letter to Dansette quotes detailed reports from the Service des Explosifs and is probably the most accurate source for this question. See also Dansette’s article in Le Monde (Dansette, 1966), in which he states: ‘During the insurrection, the administration of Ponts et Chaussées carried out two daily inspections, one in the day, the other at night, under the cover of routine checks, looking for any preparation for destruction of buildings or bridges. It found that the Germans never made any such preparations of any kind.’ For details of the importance of the two telephone exchanges, see Gerbier (2007).

  11 A facsimile of this document is reproduced at www.choltitz.de/bilderseiten/redentexte/truemmerfeldbefehl.htm [accessed November 2011] with the reference OKW/WFSt/Up (H) Nr. 772989/44 (23.8.1944, 11.00 Uhr).

  12 This section of film (colourised) can be found on the DVD Eté 44: La Libération (2004), at 1:13:50–1:17:00. In his memoirs de Gaulle suggests he gave another reason: ‘Above all, the claim that led you to accept this wording is part of an unacceptable trend’ (de Gaulle, 1956, p. 306). De Gaulle also claimed he showed Leclerc the CNR declaration published earlier in the day, which did not mention de Gaulle or the Provisional Government. This cannot be seen on film, nor does any independent source support this. De Gaulle does not appear to have remarked then or when writing his memoirs that Parodi also signed the CNR declaration, in the name of the Provisional Government (see above; Dansette, 1946, p. 512). Rol did not recall de Gaulle
being so voluble in his annoyance, and rightly pointed out that film of the event does not seem to show more than mild irritation (Bourderon, 2004, p. 455).

  13 Chaban-Delmas (1975), p. 106. Photographs and film of the scene show de Gaulle’s expression, which is as negative as Chaban describes it. See Plate 31.

  14 Bourderon (2004), p. 455.

  15 ‘When he [de Gaulle] heard my pseudonym, he asked me, quite brusquely, what my job was. I replied that it wasn’t a relevant question, and I was simply pleased by the outcome symbolised by the fact that von Choltitz was a prisoner in a nearby office. Perhaps my unpleasant attitude had its effect: de Gaulle softened and ended up making a few pleasantries.’ (Kriegel-Valrimont, 1964, p. 224.)

  16 Bourderon (2004), p. 456.

  17 Fournier & Aymard (2010), pp. 64–70.

  18 Jay (n.d.), pp. 92–3. Fournier & Aymard (2010), pp. 106–8, summarise the situation at the place de la République but do not refer to Jay’s involvement. According to Courdesses (1994), p. 313, and Jauffret (1994), p. 350, n. 4, one of the German officers who carried the surrender order to the Germans at République was a Major Kottrup. It is possible that more than one officer was involved.

  19 Darcourt’s apparently contemporary account can be found in Breton (1964), pp. 170–2. However, few of the details are corroborated by other sources. See also the accounts of Captain Fenestrelle of the Saint-Just company (Campaux, 1945, pp. 180–1) and of Riffaud (1994), pp. 142–3.

  20 For example, Marcel Henriot and Raphaël Bilke were killed at the end of the boulevard Voltaire; Georges Montalbetti was shot dead at 26 rue Faubourg du Temple; 19-year-old student Jeannine Floquet was shot at the end of the avenue Parmentier, and died of her wounds two weeks later.

  21 Breton (1964), p. 173; Riffaud (1994), p. 143; Castetbon (2004), pp. 186–93. There is a plaque to Michel’s memory where he was killed, at 17 rue du Faubourg du Temple. A long stairway in the 19th arrondissement is now called rue Michel Tagrine. I used to live in an apartment at the bottom of the stairway, with my family.

  22 Jay (n.d.), pp. 92–3. The figure of 500 soldiers is taken from Dansette (1946), p. 391, who makes no mention of the involvement of any German officer in the surrender. Rol-Tanguy effectively repeated Dansette’s version (Bourderon, 2004, p. 459).

  23 BAM VV, 25.8.

  24 For the events at Clignancourt, see Campaux (1945), p. 180. Without heavy weapons the FFI were not able to prevent over 100 German soldiers, together with two anti-tank guns and a number of heavy machine guns, from escaping in the early afternoon. This is virtually the only account of this operation. Some of the FFI fighters were apparently based in the nearby Ecole des Garçons, 18 rue Sainte-Isaure, in the 18th arrondissement (AN 72AJ/62/IV/1, pp. 75–6).

  25 There are few accounts of this battle. This is taken from Fournier & Eymard (2010), pp. 98–105, which includes many striking photographs and informative maps. Among the FTP fighters who were killed was 19-year-old Henri van Hulst, a Trotskyist; his is the only headstone in the section of the Puteaux cemetery devoted to the Resistance not to be inscribed ‘Mort pour la France’. His mother said to the authorities: ‘My son did not die for France, he died fighting fascism’ (Broué, 1995, p. 30).

  26 AN 72AJ/62/IV/2, p. 142, pp. 143–6.

  27 Dupuy (1945), pp. 42–3.

  28 Oddly, many of the flower beds remained intact – a photograph of a tank in front of a neat bed of what look like busy lizzie flowers can be seen in Fournier & Eymard (2010), p. 93.

  29 Campaux (1945), p. 174.

  30 www.gastoneve.org.uk [accessed July 2012].

  31 Mesnil-Amar (2009), p. 130.

  32 Mesnil-Amar (2009), p. 131.

  33 Martens & Nagel (2006), p. 532. Like many prisoners, Dreizner complained that most of his personal effects were removed – his compass, his money and his precious Leica camera – in what was effectively organised theft (for a description of Dreizner’s camera and how it had changed his art, see Denoyelle, 2006, p. 91). A virtually identical experience was described by Quartermaster Walraff (Bourget 1984, pp. 377–8).

  34 AN 72AJ/62/IV/1, p. 5.

  35 AN 72AJ/61/I/17, p. 41. Photographs of this scene can be found in Fournier & Eymard (2010), p. 112.

  36 Werth (2007), p. 339.

  37 Ritgen (1995), p. 199.

  38 Von Arnim (1995), pp. 253–4.

  39 Dansette (1946), p. 401.

  40 This account of the meeting is based on Dronne (1971), pp. 313–315. Detailed, and not hagiographic, it has the ring of truth, although Dronne’s sources are unknown. De Gaulle (1956) gives a brief account and recalls that Parodi and Luizet were both present and they were ‘radiant, concerned and tired by the week without rest or sleep that they had just experienced’; he also recalls that they described the ‘irritation’ of the CPL and the CNR, caused by the fact that he had not gone immediately to the Hôtel de Ville (pp. 306–307).

  41 This can be seen on the DVD Eté 44: La Libération (2004), at 1:17:00.

  42 A photograph can be seen in de Gaulle (1962), p. 342. One of the women was dressed in Alsatian traditional dress. This was presumably Jeanne Borchert, who had been at the Hôtel de Ville the previous day. See chapter 14.

  43 AN 72AJ/61/I/1, p. 2.

  44 Crénesse (1945), pp. 34–6. For a photograph of the set-up on the place de l’Hôtel de Ville, see Crénesse (1945), opposite p. 34. Some idea of the privations suffered by the Parisians during the occupation can be gained by a photograph of Crénesse and fellow French journalist Charles d’Ydewalle, in the company of Richard Dimbleby and Robin Duff of the BBC. The two Britons are plump and well fed, the Frenchmen gaunt and bony (Crénesse, 1945, opposite p. 46).

  45 René Courtin, of the Ministry of Finance, was surprised at how tall de Gaulle was. He expected he would be short, as in the Vichy propaganda cartoons. (Courtin, 1994, p. 44).

  46 Campaux (1945), p. 161.

  47 Bidault had been President of the CNR for a year. Unlike all the other major Resistance leaders (with the exception of the communists), he did not leave France for London or Algiers during the war. For a perceptive discussion of de Gaulle’s antipathy to Bidault, see Elgey (1993), pp. 65–7.

  48 Campaux (1945), p. 162.

  49 de Gaulle (1956), p. 308 states that the speech was improvised. This is fairly evident from its structure, with its repeated cadences and several false endings. Standing just behind him was the 19-year-old résistante Brigitte Servan-Schreiber, watching open-mouthed and wearing a massive pair of earrings (perhaps in red–white–blue); she gave de Gaulle a bouquet of flowers at the end of his speech (Féron, 1945, p. 74 – she had been arrested by the Germans on 16 August and severely beaten – see chapter 5). Also standing next to de Gaulle, exhausted and unshaven, was the Communist Party leader Tollet, who watched the speech grim-faced.

  50 Jackson (2001), p. 565. René Courtin was deeply moved by Bidault’s speech (‘magnificent . . . it gave me butterflies when he spoke about the suffering of all those who had lived in clandestinity to four years’), but was much less impressed by that of de Gaulle: ‘good, but lacked the sense of humanity that made Bidault’s speech so beautiful. Nothing for those who had worked for him in France for four years; not even for those who are dead. It was merely an appeal to French greatness. He does not smile. The man appears to be carried about by his destiny, and to follow his path without any attention to anyone else.’ (Courtin, 1994, p. 44.) A similar view was expressed by banker Léonard Rist in a note to his brother, Noël: ‘Phew! That first contact didn’t go so well. A bit more relaxed would have been nice. And that speech at the Hôtel de Ville – brief, authoritarian . . . Very good, perfect, but still, he could have said “thank you” to the CNR and to Alexander [Parodi] who have made such an effort for him.’ (Rist, 1983, p. 432, n. 38.) These critical reactions to this speech, expressing all the ambiguity that the Resistance felt about de Gaulle, have been forgotten by the French, and even by French historians.

  51 There is an intriguing and pre
viously unremarked difference between the contemporary accounts of de Gaulle’s speech that appeared in the newspapers (see for example Le Figaro (Campaux, 1945, pp. 162–3; see also Dansette, 1946, pp. 403–4) and L’Aube (Féron, 1945, pp. 73–5)), and the official version published after the war (de Gaulle, 1970, pp. 439–40). The contemporary versions contain a series of passages about the importance of universal suffrage and the need ‘to ensure that in the reconstructed nation no man should fear hunger or misery, and that all French people should enjoy conditions of existence that are worthy of that which they have the right to demand’ (Féron, 1945, p. 74), as well as the martial slogan: ‘War, unity and grandeur, that is our programme’ (Campaux, 1945, p. 163). This is all absent from the official version which is now part of history.

  52 de Gaulle (1956), p. 308.

  53 It is sometimes said that de Gaulle made his speech from ‘the balcony’ of the Hôtel de Ville. There is no balcony; the description here is based on contemporary newspaper articles, photographs and newsreel footage.

  54 AN 72AJ/42/IV/3, p. 31.

  55 The socialist Daniel Mayer declared that de Gaulle had made two mistakes – he had gone first to the Préfecture rather than the Hôtel de Ville, and above all he had refused to declare the Republic. Half a century later, Mayer was still smarting – see his interview in Ragueneau & Florentin (1994), pp. 172–3.

  56 Dansette (1946), p. 404.

  57 de Boissieu (1981), p. 257–8; de Langlade (1964), pp. 223–4.

  58 BAM VV, 24.8.

  59 Lankford (1991), p. 174.

  60 de Saint-Pierre (1951), p. 78.

  61 Boegner (1992), p. 296. Photographs of the aircraft after it landed can be seen in Fournier & Aymard (2010), p. 122.

  62 AN 72AJ/62/III/4, pp. 49–50.

  63 Pierquin (1983), p. 135; the shootings were also reported with horror by Victor Veau, who knew all three of the victims, and a mere thirty minutes earlier had been in the room where they were shot (BAM VV, 25.8). According to Collins & Lapierre (1965), p. 308, one of the people – Norman Lewis, a US citizen – was killed instantly. This is also recorded by Pasteur Vallery-Radot in his ‘diary’ which relies heavily for this period on material from Victor Veau (Pasteur Vallery-Radot, 1966, p. 290). I have been unable to verify which version is correct.