TraductionWho really resisted Nazism and fascism during the WWII (1)
If the French is not a myth but a reality witnessed by the history of this period where France was under Nazi occupation, in the other hand, the lion’s share attributed to Gaullist resistance in the dominant historiography is of course a mere mythology owing to its main objective consisting of hiding or at least of minimizing the key and determinant role played by Communist resistance in the liberation of France from the Nazi occupation. This historical bias and the willingness to falsify the history of this period can be easily understood in the framework of the Pax Americana and the United States anti-Communist Second Crusade in the aftermath of the WWII. The new book of the French historian Annie Lacroix-Riz whose new book “les élites françaises de 1940 à 1944, de la collaboration avec l’Allemagne à l’alliance américaine” throwing a new light on this period of the French history might give us in the same the time the main reasons underpinning the mythology of the Gaullist resistance and even behind it, British and American resistance against the “Anti-Comintern Pact” grouping German Nazi, Fascist Italy and imperialist Japan. In the following posts, I’m going to review Annie Lacroix-Riz’s new book and I will try to show its importance both from epistemogical and historical stand-point.
At First, the Gaullist resistance must be dealt with in its relationships to its British and American begetters and their hidden strategy by entering the Second World War. Of course, Britain had been attacked by Hitler who failed to invade as was the case with France. In this case, one can perfectly the resistant posture of Winston Churchill as resister against Nazi invasion of his country. But Churchill’s aim, that of his predecessor premier the appeaser, Neville Chamberlain and the British establishment general which had compromised and even encouraged and actively helped Hitler take the power in Germany had their own hidden agenda which was the crushing the Bolshevism and the Soviet Union. Frankly, after 1940’s Blitzkrieg, the first that mattered for the ruling class and the political establishment in London and Paris was not at all the resistance against Hitler and Nazi Germany but to prevent a social and communist revolution inside France and Britain, refereeing to the Russian case during the WWI. After the Blitzkrieg, London and Paris did not want to fight Hitler because France and Britain did no want destroy authoritarian systems, Nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy considered as the principal rampart against the Soviet regime in Moscow. The Collaboration between Nazi Germany Fascist Italy and the so called western democracies did not date only from Hitler’s Blitzkrieg but it went back to the Bolshevik revolution and during the interwar Years period. After the blitzkrieg of 1940, the ruling class both in France, in Britain and in the United States continued its economic, military and political collaboration with Nazi Germany and it perpetuated its policy of appeasement which was practiced before the war and since Hitler accession to power in Germany. How did we explain the posture of the conservative British Government under the conservative leader Winston Churchill who in the midst of s desperate war, committed, according the Beveridge Report drafted in 1942, to implement a comprehensive welfare state and full employment if not by the fear of social and communist revolution inside Britain as it was the case in Russia during the First World War ? In short words, the resistance of Western statesmen in the United States, in Britain and in France is a mere mythology, because it was unconceivable that the ruling class in these countries might resist and combat Nazism and Fascism, those regimes with which they share the same beliefs, the same prejudices, and the same convictions on the superiority of the white races over other non European races.
