TheFrenchWhoFoughtforHitler

ThousandsofFrenchmenvolunteeredtoprovidemilitaryhelptotheNazisduringWorldWar II, fighting in such places as Belorussia,Galicia, Pomerania, andBerlin.Utilizingthese soldiers memoirs, The French Who Fought for Hitler examines how thesevolunteersdescribetheirexploitsonthebattlefield,theirrelationstocivilianpopulationsin occupied territories, and their sexual prowess. It also discusses how the volunteersaccountfortheircontroversialdecisionstoenlist,tofighttotheend,andfinallytotestify.Coiningtheconceptsofoutcastmemoryandunlikeablevanquished,PhilippeCarrardcharacterizes the type of bitter, unrepentant memory at work in the volunteersrecollectionsandsituatesitonthemapofFrancescollectivememory.Intheprocess,hecontributestotheongoingconversationaboutmemory,askingwhetheralltestimoniesarefit to be given and preserved, and howwe should dealwith life narratives that upholdpositionsnowviewedasunacceptable.

Educated inSwitzerland,PhilippeCarrardhas taught at theUniversityofPennsylvania,theUniversityofCaliforniaatSantaBarbara, theUniversityofCaliforniaat Irvine,andthe University of Vermont, and is currently a Visiting Scholar in the ComparativeLiterature Program atDartmouthCollege.Over the past twenty years, his research hasmainlyconcernedfactualdiscoursethediscoursethatclaimstorepresentactualeventsandsituations.Inthisarea,hehaspublishedPoeticsoftheNewHistory:FrenchHistoricalDiscourse from Braudel to Chartier (1992), as well as numerous articles and bookchaptersthatanalyzeconventionsofwritinginnonfiction.

TheFrenchWhoFoughtforHitlerMemoriesfromtheOutcasts

PhilippeCarrard

CAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITYPRESS

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, So Paulo, Delhi,Dubai,Tokyo,MexicoCity

CambridgeUniversityPress

32AvenueoftheAmericas,NewYork,ny10013-2473,usa

www.cambridge.org

Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9780521198226

PhilippeCarrard2010

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions ofrelevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take placewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.

Firstpublished2010

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica

AcatalogrecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.

LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationdata

Carrard,Philippe.

TheFrenchwhofoughtforHitler:memoriesfromtheoutcasts/PhilippeCarrard.

p.cm.

Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.

isbn978-0-521-19822-6(hardback)

1. Lgion des volontaires franais contre le bolchevisme Biography. 2. Waffen-SS.Franzsische SS-Freiwilligen-Sturmbrigade Biography. 3. Waffen-SS. Waffen-Grenadier-DivisionCharlemagne,33Biography.4.WorldWar,19391945Personalnarratives,French.5.WorldWar,19391945Participation,French.6.SoldiersFranceBiography.7.SoldiersGermanyBiography.8.Outcasts FranceBiography. 9.Collective memory France. 10. World War, 19391945 Regimental histories Germany.I.Title.d757.32.c362010940.540944dc222010024616

ISBN978-0-521-19822-6Hardback

CambridgeUniversityPresshasno responsibility for thepersistenceoraccuracyofurlsforexternalor third-party InternetWebsites referred to in thispublicationanddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchWebsitesis,orwillremain,accurateorappropriate.

FORIRENE

Contents

Acknowledgments

ANoteaboutDocumentationandTranslations

Introduction

1Backgrounds

FromtheLVFtotheCharlemagne

Itineraries

TheHistoriansTake

2Authenticity

VerificationsandGuarantees

TheSajerCase

InternetDebates

Authorships

3Veracity

TheFrenchinBerlin

PossiblyTooMuch

AsGoodinBedasontheBattlefield

PossiblyTooLittle

4Textualization

TotalRecall

Perspectives

5Frameworks

TheDemonizationoftheEnemy

Frenchness

TheLensofCulture

6BearingWitness

Enlisting

FightingtotheEnd

Testifying

7FromtheOutcastsPointofView

Vanquished

Estranged

Unrepentant

Conclusion

AppendixA:BiographicalNotices

AppendixB:Maps

Bibliography

Index

Acknowledgments

Firstofall,ImustthankDartmouthCollegeandtheUniversityofLausanne(Switzerland),whose librarieswere prime resources formy research.AtDartmouth, I am particularlythankful to the Comparative Literature Program, which provided me with a home; tolibrarianMiguelVallarades,whoguidedmethroughthemazeofinformationavailableonthe Internet; and to the Humanities Resource Center staff members Susan Bibeau andThomasGarbelotti,whofacilitatedmyendeavorbysolvingseveralcomputerproblems.

On this side of the Atlantic, I am grateful toMary Jean Green, Lynn Higgins, andThomas Trezise, for rewarding conversations about the period of the Occupation inFrance;toKonradKenkel,forsharinghisknowledgeofWorldWarIIanditsaftermathinGermany; to Atina Grossmann, for communicating valuable information about theconditionofwomeninGermanytowardtheendofWorldWarII;toMarionKaplan,foroffering generous feedback on a paper I had given on the subject of the volunteersmemoirs; toRonaldSmelserandEdwardDavies, foransweringmyquestionsabout thepopularityofsomeWorldWarIIliteratureintheUnitedStates;andtoDominickLaCapra,forencouragingaprojectthatfirstappeareddifficulttocarryout.

Overseas,IwanttoexpressmyappreciationtoSiegfriedHeimann,whotaughtmealotabout Berlin and its history; to Peter Schttler, who passed on several unpublisheddocuments aboutHitlers plans forEurope and the role of theFrench volunteers in thedefense ofBerlin; toEricLefvre,who liberally shared his historians expertise on thesubject of the French volunteers; to my Swiss friends Jean-Pierre Allamand, AlainCampiotti, Marc Comina, Valrie Cossy, Catherine Dubuis, Mondher Kilani, MyriamMeuwly, BertrandMller, Jacques Pilet, AgnsRochat,Marianne Schoch-Kilani, Jean-JacquesTschumi,MoniqueTschumi, and the late Jean-LucSeylaz,whonever failed toinquire about the state of my writing activities and put up with my not-so-flexibleschedules;andlastbutnotleast,tomyfamily,whodidnotquestionthechoiceofatopicthey could only find worrisome, and especially to my mother, Mireille Carrard, whoinsistedonreadingsomeofthestrangebooksshehadseenonmydesk.

CambridgeUniversityPresshasnurtured theproject from the start. I amparticularlyindebtedtothethreeanonymousreadersfortheirusefulsuggestionsandcomments,andtomy editors, EricCrahan and Jason Przybylski, for their accessibility and the quality oftheirprofessionaladvice.

Thisbookcouldnothavebeenwrittenwithoutthecomplicityandsupportofmyfirstanddemanding reader, IreneKacandes.Manypassages inmy textbear the traceofherfamiliarity with the subject of memory, and most pages, the imprint of her editorialassistance.Thebookisthusdedicatedtoher.

Brief portionsof the textwerepublished inFrenchHistorical Studies 31:3 (2008). IthankDukeUniversityPressforpermissiontoreprint.

ANoteaboutDocumentationandTranslations

The system of documentation I am using is Parenthetical Documentation by Date ofPublication and List ofWorks Cited.When an author is represented on that List by asingle book, the documentation provided in parenthesis does not include the date ofpublication,only thepagenumber(s).Mostof thememoirs inmycorpusandseveralofthe scholarly studies to which I refer are in French and have not been translated intoEnglish. I have included, in brackets, a translationwith the firstmention of every title,whenitdidnotinvolveobviousEnglishcognates.WhenEnglishtranslationsexist,IhavesuppliedinparenthesistheinformationpublishedinEnglishas.Iamusingthesameconventions when I cite the titles of German memoirs and scholarly studies. Alltranslations of excerpts from the memoirs in my corpus, as well as from French andGermanscholarlystudies,aremine,unlessotherwiseindicated.

Introduction

OneofthemoststrikingmomentsinMarcelOphulsscelebrateddocumentaryLeChagrinet la piti [The Sorrow and the Pity] (1971) is certainlyAndrHarriss interviewwithChristian de La Mazire, the former French SS volunteer. Filmed at the castle ofSigmaringen, in remembrance of a pitiful expedition he had undertaken there in thehopeofmeetingMarshall Ptain (LaMazire 2003, 203),LaMazire recounts howheenlistedintheSSinthesummerof1944,thenwentontofighttheRussiansinPomeraniainFebruaryMarch1945.Thisinterview,asHenryRousso(1987a,119)pointsoutinhisanalysis ofOphulssmovie, brought to light an aspect of theOccupation that had beenunrecognizedand forgotten:ThousandsofFrenchmenhadvolunteered to fighton theGerman side duringWorldWar II.Moreover, according to Rousso, thesemen had notacted out of venality or moral or intellectual turpitude, as some stereotype of thecollaborationist has it; they had become involved out of political and ideologicalconvictiontodefendonthebattlefieldthecausethatforthemwasthecorrectone.

While La Mazires appearance in Le Chagrin et la piti reminded viewers of themilitary side of the collaboration, it also signaled the existence of a specific type ofmemory:SeveraloftheFrenchwhohadfoughtwiththeNaziswerereadytotestify,moreprecisely, to tellwhy theyhad enlisted,what they had experiencedduring thewar, andhow they had (or had not) adjusted after the end of the conflict. In fact, LaMazirestestimonywas not the first one to be offered.A few among the former volunteers hadalready publishedmemoirs, some as early as 1948. But the texts they hadwritten hadlargelygoneunnoticed,afatesharedbymanyothertestimoniesaboutthewarbroughtoutatatimewhentheFrenchtousethenamesoftheinitialstagesinwhatRousso(1987a)callstheVichysyndromefirstseemedunabletocompletetheirworkofmourning,and then repressed most critical subjects related to the period of the Occupation.AccordingtothestatisticsthatAnnetteWieviorkasuppliesinherstudyofthegenocide,Frenchdeporteeshadproducedover100booksandpamphletsaboutthecampsbetween1944and1947;butthesereportshadbeenignoredatthetime,asmostpeopleinFrancewereanxioustoresumelifeasusualafterfouryearsofhardship,andhistorianspresumedthatthedeporteesdidnotwanttospeakaboutanordealthatwasunspeakabletobeginwith(Wieviorka1992,163).Therepression thatRoussodescribeswasnotspecific toonecountry,however.As several scholars (e.g.,Zelizer1998,166)havenoticed,worksaboutthedarkaspectsofWorldWarIIthatlaterbecamebestsellers,suchasElieWieselsNight, Anne FranksDiary, and Primo Levis Survival in Auschwitz, were first turneddownbypublishers in theUnitedStates,Holland,and Italy;audiences, itwasassumed,werenotreadyforthiskindofwoefulmaterial.

Professionalhistorianshave investigated themilitarysidesof thecollaboration,and Ioccasionallydrawontheirworkstoprovideacontextforthenarrativesthatthevolunteersarereciting.Myobjective,however,isnottoaddtothistypeofresearchbyproducinganew,moreaccurateaccountoftheeventsinwhichthevolunteerswereinvolvedinsuchplacesasBelorussia,Galicia,Pomerania,andBerlin.Itistoinvestigatethetextsthatthosevolunteers have written and, in so doing, to investigate a particular type of memory.

Indeed,amongthemanystudiesthatexplorethesubjectmemoryofVichy,fewtakeupthetopicmemoryofFrancesmilitarycollaborationwiththeGermans.Infact,theonlysignificantreferencestothevolunteerstestimoniesIfoundareincludedinLesEchosdela mmoire: Tabous et enseignements de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale [Echoes ofMemory:TaboosandLessonsofWorldWar II] (1991), theproceedingofacolloquiumedited by Georges Kantin and Gilles Manceron. In their contributions to this volume,PascalOry,Marie-JosChombartdeLauwe,andChristopheChampclauxconsiderissuesraised bymemoirs written by collaborationists, including those by some of the formervolunteers.Theyask,amongotherthings,whetherthosememoirsaredangerousbecausetheyofferacertainfascinationfortheevil,celebratewarasthesiteofheroicadventures,andpresentacomplacentviewof theNazimilitaryunits that theFrenchvolunteershadelectedtojoin.Iwill,ofcourse,returnlatertothesecontroversialissues,astheypertaintodiscursiveandethicalmattersthatarecentraltothetextsIamconsidering.

Several reasons account for the lack of research on thememory ofFrancesmilitarycollaboration. The main one arguably pertains to focus of interest. Since the renewedconcernfortheVichyperiodinthe1970s,workonmemoryhasgenerallycenteredonthegood,worthwhiletestimoniesofcampsurvivors(e.g.,Wieviorka1998,Coquio1999)and toa lesserextenton thoseofmembersof theResistance (e.g.,GuillouandLaborie1995,Boursier1997).Thereminiscencesofothercategoriesofwarparticipants,however,have not been granted the same attention.While scholars (e.g.,Durand 1994,Harbulot2003,Vittori2007)haveinvestigatedtheordealoftheFrenchprisonersofwarandofthemenforcedtogoworkinGermanyontheprogramServiceduTravailObligatoire(STO),theyhavehardlyconcernedthemselveswithstudyingthewaymembersoftheseill-fatedgroups remember thewar in their testimonies. There still seems to be some discomfortabout what POWs and draftees of the STO have to say, possibly because they do notqualify as victims as obviously as do the political and the racial deportees.AsRichardVinen puts it in the chapters ofTheUnfree French (2007) he devotes to these groups,POWs are felt to be inadequate in some way, especially if they did not manage toescapeorberapatriatedbefore1945(212);andforcedlaborersoftheSTO,blamedforgoing, are also upon their return encouraged to keep quiet about their experiencebecause it no longer fits into Frances vision of herself (278). That discomfort, ofcourse, iscompounded in the instanceof thevolunteers: It isdifficult tosummonmuchsympathy forpeoplewhochose to fight for theNazis, andwhose cause, tobeginwith,never really agreed with Frances vision of herself. Likewise, it is legitimate to askwhetherdevotingawholebooktothememoryofthemilitarycollaborationiswise,asitmay, indirectlyat least, imply therehabilitationof individualsandstandpoints thatwererightlydenouncedafterthewar.

My assumption is that no subject should be taboo for scholarly research, and thatexamining the writings left by a certain group does not mean endorsing the valuesrepresentedby thatgroup. In this instance, studying the texts that the formervolunteershave produced involves neither sanctioning National Socialism, nor issuing a blanketcondemnationtotheindividualswho,forreasonsIreviewlater,electedtofightwiththeGermansontheEasternFront. Iaimtoassumethepositionthat thesociologistsMichelPinonandMoniquePinon-Charlotdescribe in their self-reflexivecommentsabout thework they have conducted on social classes (e.g., theFrench haute-bourgeoisie), places

(e.g., castles), and activities (e.g., hunting)withwhich they clearly have few affinities.Specifically, adopting the empathy that Pinon and Pinon-Charlot (71) deem to benecessary for the understanding of a group,whatever onemight think of itsmembersbehavior, I abstain from making judgments on the choices and the actions of mymemoirists. Indeed, the latter have already been sentenced in severalways: Theyweredefeatedonthebattlefield,wheretheybecamepartoftheGermancollapse;inthecourts,wheretheywerefoundguiltyoftreason;andinthejudgmentofHistory,wheretheyarenowlinkedwithasidethatisregardedascriminal.Addingmyowncondemnationwouldthusbepointlessand smackof self-righteousness; asTzvetanTodorovhas submitted inhisessayontheabusesofmemory,togivelessonsofmoralityhasneverbeenevidenceofvirtue(43).ThemethodologicalempathythatImodelafterthesociologists,however,isnotwithoutlimits.Idonotshyawayfromtakingupthepoliticalandethicalissuesthatthevolunteersmemoirsareraising,forinstance,whentheauthorsdescribethewaytheytreatedcivilianpopulationsinBelorussia,claimthattheywereunawareoftheexistenceofexterminationcamps,andexpressnoregretabouttheirinvolvementduringthewar.

My corpus is restricted to published works. Unlike the body of texts used by PaulFussellinTheGreatWarandModernMemory, itdoesnot includematerial that isonlyavailable in the archives ofwarmuseums and specialized libraries. It consists of thirtymemoirs, twenty-four of which were written by French volunteers. For the sake ofcomparing experiences and attitudes, and because their authors are French-speaking, Ihave admitted six additional testimonies provided by volunteers coming from Alsace,Belgium,andSwitzerland.This listmakesnoclaimatexhaustiveness.Notcounting thememoirsthathaveremainedinthemanuscriptstage,moretextsmaybeoutthere,broughtoutat theauthorsexpenseorbysmall,quicklyvanishedpresses.Scholars, in thisarea,like inmanyothers,wouldbe imprudent to submit that theyhave readeverything,aslongoutofprint,nowheretobefoundtextscanatsomepointturnuponinternetsiteslikeAbebooks or be reissued by publishing houses that specialize in alternativematerialsaboutWorldWar II, such as Arctic, Dualpha, LHomme Libre, and Lore. Thus, I hadcompletedafirstdraftofthisstudywhenLorebroughtout(in2008)BaylesDeMarseilleNovossibirsk,abookthattheauthorhadfirstself-publishedin1994,andthatIhadbeenable to obtain only in its German translation. Those same publishing houses have alsounveiled new texts (no less than six in 2007 and 2008 alone), though without alwaysexplicatingwhenthosetextshadbeenwrittenorhowtheyhadfoundtheirwaytothedeskofapublisheratthispointintime.Accordingtotheheadofoneofthesefirms,whospokeunder theconditionofanonymity, thesuddenarrivalofsomanyvolunteersmemoirs isdue to the fact that their authors have recently died; the veterans had written theirreminiscences andwere eager to see them in print, but they did notwant to cause anytrouble in their old age and had left to their families the responsibility for contactingpublishersaftertheirdeath.

Thefactthatweknowwhentheveteransmemoirswerepublishedbut,inmostcases,notwhentheywerewritteniscertainlyaliabilitywithrespecttotheirstatusashistoricaldocuments.Itmakesitdifficulttodeterminewhatpromptedanauthortocomeoutofhissilencewhenhedid,obligingustotakeatfacevaluetheexplanationsthathehimselfissupplying.More importantly, it keeps us fromplacing thememoir in a precise context,thatis,fromascertainingwhichcontemporarygroups,politicalorother,itsauthormight

havebeenaddressingorseekingapprovalfrom.Themoregeneralhistoricalframeworkinwhich thevolunteers recollections canbe situated is of course theColdWar.From theearly1950son,asRonaldSmelserandEdwardDaviesargueintheirstudyofthemythof theEasternFront, itbecameacceptable toconceiveof theWehrmachtsoperations intheUSSR as a prelude to our own struggle against Soviet Communism (3). Thoughmade about the United States, Smelser and Daviess diagnosis is certainly valid forFrance. In fact, part of French public opinion had probably turned earlier against theUSSR,astheimpositionofcommunistregimesuponseveralcountriesinCentralEurope,aswellasthepresenceinFranceofastrong,thenStalinistCommunistparty,madepeoplebothwaryof theUSSRand liable tobuy into alternativeviewsof theSecondWorldWar.

While the texts in my corpus pose problems of dating, they also raise issues ofrepresentativeness similar though not identical to those identified by Raul Hilberg(2001,48) inhisdiscussionof the testimoniesofHolocaust survivors.Submitted to thestandards of the social sciences, the surviving volunteers as a whole do not form inHilbergsterminologyarandomsampleofthevolunteercommunity.Thatis,thosewhotestifieddonotformarandomsampleofthesurvivingvolunteers,andtheirtestimoniesdonotformarandomsampleoftheirexperiences.True,suchconsiderationsofmethoddo not invalidate the volunteersmemoirs, as they do not invalidate the testimonies ofHolocaust survivors and of their families. But theymust be taken into account, as onemightaskunderwhatconditionsindividualscanrepresentthegrouptowhichtheybelong;in this instance, towhatextentabout thirtymemoiristscanbeviewedas speakingforthe thousands of French, Belgian, and Swiss men who elected to bear arms for theGermansduringWorldWarII.ItakeuptheseissuesinChapter6,thoughobviouslynotfrom the statistical perspective that Hilberg had inmind. Doing a close reading of theworksunderconsideration,Iassesstheirauthorsclaimtorepresenttheircomrades,inthedifferentmeaningsthatmuch-glossedverbmayhaveinaparticulartypeofdiscourse,namely,thememoir.

Asagenre,thememoirbelongstothemorecomprehensivecategorythatSidonieSmithandJuliaWatson(2001)calllifenarratives:Acategory that includesautobiographies,letters, and diaries texts in which individuals recount what they themselves haveexperienced at a certain time and place. While autobiography has been the subject ofnumerousstudies,thememoirhasattractedlessattention.Thetheoristswhohavesoughttodifferentiatebetweenthesetwotypesoflifenarrativehavegenerallydonesointermsofsubjectmatter.MartinLschnigg,forexample,writesinhisentryAutobiographyinthe Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative that autobiographies emphasize inner life,whereas memoirs foreground the authors public role among well-knowncontemporaries(35).Similarly,theMerriamWebstersEncyclopediaofLiteraturestatesthat while writers of autobiographies are concerned primarily with themselves,memoiristsareusuallypersonswhohaveplayedroles in,orhavebeencloseobserversof, historical events, andwhose purpose is to describe or interpret those events (749).LschniggsandMerriamWebstersdefinitionscertainlyapply to theclassicalmodelofthe memoir, such as Saint-SimonsMmoires and ChateaubriandsMmoires doutre-tombe [Memoirs from Beyond the Grave]), as well as to modern texts written bypoliticiansandhigh-rankingsoldiers,suchasWinstonChurchillsTheSecondWorldWar

andCharlesdeGaullesMmoiresdeguerre [published inEnglishasWarMemoirs]. Incurrent usage, though, memoir often refers to the recollections of ordinary people,peoplewho, in some cases, lived through historical events but played no public rolesamong well-known contemporaries. Furthermore, the term today seems to imply arestriction in time rather than a choice of subject matter. Autobiography suggeststemporal comprehensiveness: The author recounts her/his life from childhood up to themomentofwriting.Memoir,ontheotherhand,referstoalimitedtimespan.AsMarcusBillsonsubmitsinhisessayonthegenre,theauthorrelatesasegmentofhisownlifethatwasimportant tohis identityasasocialbeing,suchasanexile,an imprisonment, thecourseofacareer,participationinwar,inpolitics,inanartisticcoterie(267).Asfarasnumberisconcerned,thesingularmemoirisusedincurrentpracticetodenoteagenre,and the plural memoirs, a certain type of contents synonymous with memories orrecollections. In this respect, Anglo-American usage differs from French usage; inFrench, thepluralmmoiresmeansbothamemoirandrecollections,whereas thesingular mmoire signifies memory (in the senseof capacity for remembering) ifthegenderisfeminine,reportorstudyifitismasculine.

The texts in my corpus certainly fit this present-day Anglo-American sense ofmemoir,even though theymaybe labeledmmoires inFrench.Mostof themwerewrittenbylow-rankingsoldiers,soldierswhowereinvolvedinhistoricaleventsbutdidnot leadwhat Jean-Louis Jeannelle (10)calls theviesmajuscules [liveswrit large]ofsuchpeopleasChurchillanddeGaulle.Thevolunteers,moreover,devotelittlespace,ifany,totheiractivitiesbeforeandafterthewar;theyusuallycenteronthewaritself,thatis,ontheperiodintheirlivesthattheyregardastellableasworthyofbeingrecountedand preserved. In this respect, their memoirs are structurally similar to numerous lifenarrativesproducedin thelate twentiethandearlytwenty-firstcenturies,beginningwithtexts written by camp survivors, which, for that matter, often have memoir in theirsubtitle:VivetteSamuel,RescuingtheChildren:AHolocaustMemoir;AlexanderDonat,TheHolocaustKingdom:AMemoir;JanaReneFriesova,FortressofMyYouth:MemoirofaTerezinSurvivor,andthelike.Tobesure,thedeporteesdidnotleavetheirhomesoftheirfreewill,andtheexperiencesthattheyreportareradicallydifferentfromthoseoftheveteransinmycorpus.Still,likethevolunteers,mostoftheirmemoirshaveauthorswhoarelittle-known,ordinarypeople;andlikethevolunteers,theyrecountnotawholelife,but the particular moment however painful that made that life extraordinary andthereforeworthbeingtoldandremembered.Iwillreturnattimestothisparallelbetweenthevolunteersandthedeporteesmemoirs,asthelatterhavecometoserveasaparadigmformemoirsingeneralandtraumaticwarmemoirsinparticular.

Myapproachtothevolunteersreminiscencesisboththematicandtextual.WhenItakeup,say, the topiccombaton theEasternFront, Idonot justaskwhere thevolunteersfoughtandwhat theydidordidnotaccomplish; Ialsoconsider the rhetorical strategiesandconventionsofrepresentationonwhichtheydraw,examining,amongotherthings,thepoint of view from which they describe the fighting, the terms that they employ todesignate the enemy, and the reference systems onwhich they rely to account for theirexperiences. Such an approach may seem inappropriate in the case of historicaltestimonies,where content usually receives priority.However, as CaroleDornier andRenaudDulong(2005)havearguedintheir introductiontoaseriesofessaysdevotedto

thetestimonyasgenre,memorydoesnotspontaneouslymetamorphoseintoamemoir.Itmustatsomepointundergoaprocessoftextualization,andIintendtoinvestigatethatprocesswhenIexaminethevolunteersaccountsoftheirexperiences.

Mypurposeisthustwofold,asitfitsaninterdisciplinaryendeavorthatpartakesbothofhistoriographyandofaliteraryreadingoftextsthatdonotbelongtoliterature,atleastnot if defined as works of imagination.By exploring a set of reminiscences that, forunderstandable reasons, have been largely suppressed, I want to contribute to theknowledgeofthememoryofWorldWarIIinFrance.Byprobingthewaysinwhichthosereminiscencesareinscribedinmemoirs,however,Ialsowanttoaddtothepoeticsofthatgenretothestudyof therules,codes,andconventionsthatshapethetextualizationofpersonal experiences. The attention I lend to procedures of writing, however, is notimperialistic.IncontrasttoHaydenWhite(1987)andothers,Idonotbelievethatalltextseventually have the same status, and that the distinction that Dorrit Cohn (1999)establishesbetweenfictionalandreferentialdiscoursesshouldthereforebecollapsed.Foronething,mymemoiristsclaimtomaketruestatementsaboutthepast,andthatclaim,although it should not remain unexamined, must be taken seriously. Indeed, it hasimportant textual implications: it shapes several aspects of the writing, aspects whosefunctionis to tellreaders,or toconfirmfor them,that thebooktheyholdin theirhandsdescribeseventsthattheauthoractuallylivedthrough.

The questions I ask of thememoirs inmy corpus unfold in seven stages. Chapter 1providesthekindofbackgroundinformationthatisnecessaryfortheunderstandingoftheveteransrecollections.IdescribetheorganizationsthatthevolunteerscouldjoinandthenreviewthestudiesthathistorianshavedevotedtoFrancesmilitarycollaboration.Chapter2 takes up an issue that is crucial for thememoir as genre: authenticity. I examine thestrategiesthat thememoiristsemploytoestablishthat theywerereallythere,andthendescribe the debates that have been taking place about some of the books they havewritten, for example, about Guy Sajers Le Soldat oubli. I also consider problems ofauthorship, as some of the texts in my corpus were avowedly written with thecollaboration of ghostwriters, whereas others probably received an assistance thatremainedunacknowledged.Chapter3raisestherelatedbutdistinctquestionofveracity:Ifthememoirists were really there, are they reliable? I look at a test case divergingtestimoniesaboutthebattleofBerlinandthendiscusspassagesinwhichthevolunteersseemtoover-orunderreporttheeventsinwhichtheywereinvolved,suchastheatrocitiesthattheywitnessedontheEasternFront.Passagesofthistype,Iargue,poseanimportantquestion about thememoir as a genre, namely how the veracity of a testimony can beassessedwhentheversionofaneventthat itofferscanbeconfrontedneitherwithotherversions nor with documentary evidence. Chapter 4 explores some specifics of thevolunteers writing related to modes of remembering and types of focalization. Theveteransdisplaytotalrecall,whichmeansthattheyaccountindetailforeventsinwhichthey participated several years or even decades earlier. They also report those eventsfrombelow,thatis,fromthelimitedperspectiveofthefootsoldieroftenstuckinmudandsnow. I showhow thiswayofdescribing the fighting illustrateswhatOmerBartovcalls the demodernization of warfare on the Eastern Front, and Jonathan Littell, thedemise of the ideal of the hard, vertical fascist soldier. Chapter 5 investigates theideological facets of the volunteers testimonies. Buying unconditionally into Nazi

propaganda,theveteransdemonizetheSovietsanddisparagethewesternAlliesforsuchwar crimes as the bombing of the German cities. But they also describe theirexperiencesatthefrontbydrawingonFrenchpoetry,Britishdrama,andAmericanfilm,that is, by turning to a reference system that almost entirely ignores Germanyscontribution to literature and the arts. I discuss that contradiction, submitting that itexposes the volunteers ambivalence toward Germany their endorsement of Germanpoliticalandmilitarygoals,aswellastheirparallelindifferencetothingsGermaninthecultural domain.Chapter 6 examines how the volunteers justify themselves how theyaccountfordecisionsthatwillcertainlytroubletodaysreaders.Specifically,Iaskhowtheveterans explain why they enlisted on the side that is now universally viewed as thewrongside;howtheyvindicate their resolution to fight to theend,when thewarwasobviously lost;andwhy theyelected to testifyafterward,at the riskof losing their jobsandalienating their friendswhentheir taintedpastwouldresurface.Chapter7examineshow the veterans describe their postwar status, that is, how they portray themselves aspeople who did not commit any offense and were unfairly sentenced in their owncountries, both by the justice system and in public opinion. I ask whether this self-assessmentiswarrantedandshowhowthevolunteersthemselveshavecontributedtotheirexclusion.Pointingoutthattheveteransunbendingattitudesraiseethicalissues,IaskinmyConclusionwhetherwe should regard their testimonies as dangerous. I present theargumentsofcriticswhohold textsof this type tobeharmful,because theirauthorsareblindtothetruth,cannotacceptcontradiction,andrejectanykindofguilt.Lookingatthememory boom of the past twenty years, however, I also surmise that the volunteersreminiscences enable us to pose several fundamental questions about life writing,specificallytoaskwhetheralltestimoniesarefittobepreserved,andhowweshouldtreattheonesthatupholdpositionsnowregardedasunacceptable.

The scholarly apparatus onwhich I draw to conductmy analyses ismost diverse. ItincludesworksonWorldWar II,especiallyon theEasternFront (e.g.,Bartov1986and1991,Grenkevich1999,Slepyan2006,MllerandUeberschr2009);onthecontributionofforeignvolunteers to theGermanwareffort (e.g.,Gordon1980,Conway1993,Estes2003,Giolitto1999,Mller2007);on therepresentationofWorldWarII in literaryandnonliterary texts (e.g., Higgins 1987, Smelser and Davies 2008); on memory andtestimonyassourcesforourknowledgeofthepast(e.g.,Cru1929,Loftus2000,Dulong1998,Ricoeur 2000); and on the poetics of personal texts, as opposed to fictional ones(e.g.,Lejeune1975,Smith andWatson2001,Suleiman2006).Because Iwish to avoidcircularity,however,Iwillalsoquestionthatapparatus.Moreprecisely,IwillasktowhatextentthecorpusIamconsideringobligesustorevisitthecurrentviewsaboutthemilitarycollaboration; the idea that testimoniesprovideuswith awindow into thepast; and thestatusofthememoirasafactual,referentialtext(Genette1991,Cohn1999),whoseconventions must be distinguished from those of fiction. My analyses, therefore,participate in the ongoing debates on the nature and function of memory and on theappropriateness of a textual reading to the comprehension of nonliterary works.Participating, however, does not mean closing. I want the issues that I raisethroughoutthebooktoremainopen,allthemoresosincethoseissuesconcernabodyoftextsthatsofarhasremainedrelativelyunexplored.Ultimately,IhopethatmystudywillpromptfurtherresearchonthesubjectofthememorynotjustoftheFrenchwhofoughtforHitler,butofothergroupswhowereinvolvedinWorldWarIIandwhosetestimonies

forsomereasonhavenotbeeninvestigatedastheycouldhavebeen.

1Backgrounds

When Susan Suleiman, in herCrises ofMemory and the SecondWorldWar, discussessuch texts as Lucie Aubracs Ils partiront dans livresse (published in English asOutwitting theGestapo), AndrMalrauxsAntimmoires (published in English asAnti-Memoirs),andGeorgesPerecsWoulesouvenirdenfance(publishedinEnglishasW,Or,theMemoryofChildhood),shecanassumethatthelearnedreaderstowhomherstudyisaddressedaresomewhatfamiliarwiththesetexts,theirauthors,andwiththepoliticalandcultural context to which they refer. She does not need to introduce Malraux, nor toexplain thatFrancewasoccupiedduringWorldWarII, thatpartof thecountrysJewishpopulation was deported, and that there was a resistance movement. Dealing with thememoirsof theFrenchvolunteerswho fought forGermanyallowsno suchassumption.SpecialistsoftheOccupationmaybeacquaintedwiththenamesofthewriterSaint-Loup,the miliciens Pierre Bassompierre and Lon Gaultier, and the Belgian politician leaderLonDegrelle;theymaybeawarethatLaMazire,afterstarringinLeChagrinetlaPiti,wrotetwobooksofreminiscences;andtheymayrecallthatRoussosfirststudy,PtainSigmaringen, includes an imaginary dialog with one of my memoirists, Eric Labat.However, unless they have done the same research as I have, it is unlikely that theyrecognizesuchpeopleasJacquesAuvray,GilbertGilles,SergeMit,ChristianMalbosse,Henri Philippet, and Pierre Rostaing. Furthermore, although La Mazires Le Rveurcasqu (published in English as The Captive Dreamer) and Sajers Le Soldat oubli(publishedinEnglishasTheForgottenSoldier)werecommercialsuccesses,noneof thetitles in my corpus has been a bestseller comparable to, say, Pierre Clostermanns Legrand cirque (published in English as The Big Show) and Roger Sauvages Un duNormandie-Niemen [OneMemberof theNormandie-NiemenSquadron], thememoirsoftwo French pilots who volunteered to fight on the side of the Allies, respectively inEnglandand in theUSSR.Mostof thebooks I amdiscussingarenowoutofprint andobtainable only through bookstores specializing in militaria or through Internet sellerssuchasEbay,Amazon,andAbebooks.Finally, theevents inwhich thevolunteerswereinvolvedontheEasternFrontarenotasfamedas,say,thebattleofStalingrad.TheSwissvolunteerLobsigerwasinKharkov,andtheAlsatianSajer,inKursk;buttheFrenchfromFrancedidnottakepartinanymajormilitaryoperationuntiltheyfacedtheRussiansinGalicia,Pomerania,andBerlinduringthelastmonthsofthewar.SinceIcannottakeforgranted that readers are familiar with the authors whoseworks I investigate, normoregenerallywith thespecificsofFrenchmilitarycollaboration, Ibeginbyprovidingsomebackground informationabout theFrenchunits thatweredeployedon theEasternFrontand the events inwhich theywere involved.Then, I survey theworksof thehistorianswhohavestudiedFrancesmilitarycollaborationandwhoseresearchoffersoverviewsthatcontrastwith thenecessarily limitedaccountsprovided in thevolunteers reminiscences.ShortbiographiesofthememoiristsandafewdataaboutthetextstheyhaveauthoredareprovidedinanAppendixattheendofthebook.

FromtheLVFtotheCharlemagne

ThreemainorganizationsgroupedtheFrenchwhowereintentonhelpingtheGermansonthebattlefield:

1.TheLgiondesVolontairesFranaiscontreleBolchevisme,orLVF.TheLVFwasformedinJuly1941attheinitiativeofcollaborationistleadersinParis,whohadreceivedwithenthusiasm thenewsofGermanysattackon theUSSRonJune22,1941.Half-heartedlysupportedbytheGermanandVichygovernments,theLVF remained a private organization. The volunteers who enlisted trained inPolandandthenparticipatedintheMoscowoffensiveinNovemberDecember1941 as the 638th Infantry Regiment of the 7th Division of theWehrmacht.StoppedatDjukovo,avillagelocatedabout40milesfromthecapital,theywereruledunfitforthefrontlinebytheGermancommandandpulledout.Assignedtothe186thSecurityDivisionthatwasfightingthepartisansinBelorussia,theyremainedinthisareafromearly1942toJune1944,whentheyweresweptintothehecticretreatofArmyGroupCenter.AfterfightingonerealbattleagainsttheRedArmyatBobr,neartheBerezinaRiver,theyregroupedinGreifenberg,inPomerania.DisbandedinNovember1944,theLVFbecamepartofthenewlycreatedDivisionCharlemagne.

2. The 8. Franzsische SS-Freiwilligen Sturmbrigade, abbreviated the BrigadeFrankreich,orevenmorebrieflytheFrankreich.TheSturmbrigadewasformedinJuly1943,afterbothHitlerandLavalagreedthatFrenchmencouldjointheWaffen-SS. The Brigade trained at Sennheim (Alsace) and at the NeweklauTrainingCampof theWaffen-SS atBeschenau (south ofPrague), the officersbeingsenttospecializedschoolsinBadTlz(Bavaria)andPosen-Treskau(nearDanzig). In August 1944, the Brigade became part of the SS Division HorstWessel, which was seeking to contain the Russian advance in Galicia.ImmediatelyengagedinbrutalbattleintheareaofSanokandtheWislokaRiver,theFrankreichlostmanyofitsmembersinlessthantwoweeks.ThesurvivorsretreatedtoPomerania,wheretogetherwiththemenleftfromtheLVFtheybecamepartoftheDivisionCharlemagne.

3.The33.Waffen-GrenadierDivisionderSSCharlemagne,abbreviatedtheDivisionCharlemagne, or evenmorebriefly theCharlemagne.TheCharlemagne is themostfamousof theFrenchunits thatfoughtontheGermanside,but infact itwas only in existence for a few months. Formed in September 1944, theCharlemagnegatheredmencomingfromtheLVFandtheFrankreich;itaddedvolunteersfromotherorganizations, includingastrongcontingentofmiliciens(members of the Milice, the militia formed in 1943 by Vichy to fight theResistance), who had fled France upon the Allies rapid progress and theconstitutionoftheLiberationgovernment.FormedoftwoRegiments(numbers57 and 58, each comprising three Companies), the Charlemagne trained inWildflecken,about60milesnortheastofFrankfurt-am-Main.SenttoPomeraniainmid-February1945butpoorlyequipped,itwasbowledoverbytheadvanced

echelon of the Red Armys Second White Russian Front in such places asHammerstein,Krlin,Belgard,andKolberg. In lateAprilearlyMay,afewofitsmembersalsoparticipatedinthebattleofBerlin.

IhavefocusedontheLVF,theBrigadeFrankreich,andtheDivisionCharlemagne,but

the French who were eager (or at least willing) to help Germany could join otherorganizations.PierreLambertandGrardLeMarec, intheirstudyof thesubject, listnoless than 24 such groups, including theNationalsozialistischeKraftfahrkorps, orNSKK(which employed drivers, mechanics, andmotorcyclists); the construction OrganisationTodt (whichbuilt theWallon theAtlantic thatwassupposed topreventany landing);theKriegsmarine(whichenlistedseamen); theTechnischeNothilfe,orTeno(whichwasresponsible for maintaining and repairing roads and railroad tracks); the PhalangeAfricaine (which briefly fought theAllies inTunisia in 1943); and theBezenPerrot (agroupofautonomistsfromBritannythattrackedtheResistanceinwesternFrance).Exactnumbersaredifficulttodetermine,butLambertandLeMarec(240)estimatethat40,000Frenchmen joinedGermanorganizations,while 46,000 integrated into the FreeFrenchForcesthatwereactiveonthesideoftheAllies.

The constitution of such units as the LVF, the Brigade Frankreich, and theDivisionCharlemagnemustalsobeplaced in thecontextofamoregeneral,Europeanmilitarycollaboration of several countries with the Third Reich. As early as April 1940, SSdivisionshadbeenformedwithvolunteersfromDenmark,Norway,Holland,andBelgium(Stein94).ThemovementaccelerateduponGermanysattackontheUSSRinJune1941,theSS leadership, from thenon, admittingmore andmore foreignerswhoweremostlygrouped into divisions whose names denoted the origin of their members. TheScandinavians became part of the Wiking and the Nordland; the Dutch, of theNederland;theBelgians,oftheWallonieandtheLangermark;theEstonians,oftheEstland; theRussians andBelorussians,of the Weissruthenien; theBosnians,of theHandschar; and the Hungarians, of the Hunyadi, the Gombos, and the Maria-Theresa.In1944, thesedivisionscomprisedmorethan400,000men;formingabout50percentoftheWaffen-SS,theyincluded40,000Dutch,25,000Flemish,8,000Walloons,700 Swiss, 25,000 Latvians, 18,000 Russians, 30,000 Ukrainians, 30,000 Cossacks,20,000 Bosnians, and 40,000 Hungarians (Historia 1973, 15). Measured against thesefigures,thestatisticsthatLambertandLeMarecprovidemustbequalified.While40,000Frenchmen served in the German army, the number of volunteers engaged in militaryoperationsneverexceeded3,000fortheLVF,2,500fortheBrigadeFrankreich,and8,000for theCharlemagne (Rousso 1987, 64). Such figures obviously areweak, especially ifcompared to thoseof theBelgianunits; in fact, theyareamong the lowest foroccupiedEurope,bothinabsoluteandrelativenumbers(Rousso2007,110).Theyconfirmthatinspiteofwhat somehistorians (e.g.,Paxton2000) call the State collaborationbetweenVichy and Berlin, neither government ever really warmed up to the idea of Francecontributing significant military help to Germany; Vichy was mainly concerned withkeeping France out of the conflict, and Berlin was worried about anything that mightresemblethereconstitutionoftheFrencharmy.1Thesestatisticsalsoshowthatalthoughmost Frenchmen, as Burrin puts it, accommodated themselves fairly well to theOccupation (1995, 183), few of them were ready to go one step further and join the

Germanson thebattlefield; thevolunteerswereneverpopularandbecamepariahsafterthe war a subject to which I will return in Chapter 7. Frances feeble militaryinvolvementon the sideof theAxis, however, doesnotmake the testimonies Iwant toexamine lessworthyofconsideration.To thecontrary, it raises issuesofmotivationandrepresentativeness: If the volunteers were not encouraged to enlist, why did theyneverthelessdoso?Iftheyweresofew,whatcausedidtheyintendtohelpwhilefightingtheRussians?Andwhentheyelectedtojotdowntheirrecollections,whatgroupdidtheymeantospeakfor?

Itineraries

ThememoirswrittenbytheFrenchandFrench-speakingvolunteersobviouslydonotoffercomprehensive accounts of the operations that took place on the Eastern Front duringWorldWarII.Theygenerallyforegroundtheeventsinwhichtheirauthorsweredirectlyimplicated, conveying experiences thatwereverydifferent induration and intensity.LaMazire,forexample,oweshisfamemoretohisappearanceinLeChagrinetlapitithanto his exploits on the battlefield. He arrived in Hammerstein (Pomerania) with theDivision Charlemagne on February 27, 1945, fought around Krlin from March 1 toMarch5,thenretreatedwithasmallgroupandwastakenprisonerbythePolesonMarch27 (LaMazire 1972, 111, 119, 130, 153). Gaultiers,Mits, and Costabravas days inGaliciawiththeBrigadeFrankreichwereevenfewer.Thethreevolunteersleftthetrainingcamp in Beschenau in late July 1944, and started fighting on August 9; Gaultier waswoundedon thatsameday,andMitonAugust20; the twomenwere thenevacuated tomilitaryhospitals,whileCostabravawastakenprisoneronAugust21(Mit92,103,133;Gaultier221;Costabrava147).Incontrast,Dupont,Rostaing,Rusco,andLeverrierspentmorethantwoyearschasingpartisansinBelorussia,thenwentontoPomeraniaandeven(Rostaing) toBerlin.Thoughnotas long,Bayles,Bassompierres,andGilless timesatthe front were particularly challenging. All three men, after fighting in Belorussia(Bassompierre)orGalicia(Bayle),wereengagedinPomerania;takenprisoner,theyspentseveral months in Russian camps before being returned to France, where they wereprosecutedandtried.

TheSwissandAlsatianvolunteershadgenerallymuchlongerstaysatthefrontlinethantheFrench; unlike theLVF soldiers busy fighting partisans, they alsowere involved insomewellknown,consequentialbattlesagainsttheRedArmy.Asamemberofoneofthemost prestigious SSDivisions, the LeibstandarteAdolfHitler, the Swiss Lobsiger tookpartinthecampaignintheUkraine,thenwenttoFranceandItaly.Sajer,allowedtoenrolldirectly in theWehrmacht because he was from Alsace and regarded as German, alsojoined a famed Division, the Grossdeutschland, with which he fought in Poland, theUkraine, and Pomerania. Following theGrossdeutschland to East Prussia in the fall of1944,heparticipatedinhisunitsretreatalongtheBalticSeainearly1945,surrenderinginApriltotheBritish.AmongtheFrench-speakingvolunteers,theBelgiansprobablyhadthelongestandtoughesttime.Asmembers,successively,oftheLgionWallonie,theSS-SturmbrigadeWallonien,andtheSS-GrenadierDivisionWallonien,theywereengagedatsomeofthemostexposedplacesontheEasternFront,namelytheCaucasus,theUkraine,

Estonia, and Pomerania. The end of the war found Philippet at an officers school inBavariaandGruberandTerlininmilitaryhospitals.ThethreemeneventuallyreturnedtoBelgium, where they were tried and sentenced for treason. Their commandant, LonDegrelle, was luckier. Managing to move from Pomerania to Copenhagen to Oslo, heboardedaplanethatflewhimtoSpain,whereheliveduntilhisdeath.

AlthoughtheFrench,Swiss,Belgian,andAlsatianvolunteershaddifferentexperiencesat the front, they nevertheless can be viewed as constituting a relatively homogeneousgroup. They enlisted for the same reason: to bring down Bolshevism. They fought acommon enemy: the Red Army. Theymet comparable fates when they returned homeafterthewar:Regardedastraitors,theyhadtofacethejusticesystemoftheircountries.Lastbutnotleast,theyexhibitsimilarattitudesintheirmemoirs:Unrepentant,theyinsistthattheyfoughtforajustcauseandexpressnoregretabouttheirinvolvementonthesideoftheNazis.

TheHistoriansTake

While historians have not investigatedFrancesmilitary collaborationwithGermany asthoroughlyastheResistanceorthedeportations,theystillhavetakenupthesubject.Theircontributions,byandlarge,fallundertwomaincategories:

1. Scholarly studies grounded in archival research. Academic historians, as Iindicated in my Introduction, have shown little interest in Frances militarycollaboration with Germany and even less concern for Belgiums andSwitzerlandscontributionstoGermanyswarefforts.Theonlyscholarlybooksentirely devoted to this subject are Pierre GiolittosVolontaires franais sousluniformeallemand[FrenchVolunteersinGermanUniforms],EddydeBruyneandMarcRikmenspoelsForRexandBelgium,andVincenzOertlesSollteIchausRusslandnichtzurckkehren:SchweizerFreiwilligeandeutscherSeite[IfIshouldnotreturnfromRussia:SwissVolunteersontheGermanSide].Nextto thesestudies,sectionsabout thevolunteerscanbefound inbooks that treatthe collaboration in general, such as Martin Conways Collaboration inBelgium;MichelleCottasLaCollaboration;JacquesDelaruesTraficsetcrimessous lOccupation [Deals andCrimes during theOccupation]; J. Delpierre deBayacsHistoire de laMilice; BertramGordonsCollaborationism in Franceduring the Second World War; Orys Les Collaborateurs; Werner RhrsOkkupation undKollaboration; RoussosPtain et la fin de la collaboration;Franz Seidlers Die Kollaboration: 19391945; and Dominique VennersHistoirede la collaboration.Chapters about theLVF, theBrigadeFrankreich,and theDivision Charlemagne also figure in studies that examine the role offoreigners in the German army duringWorldWar II, such as Chris BishopsHitlers Foreign Divisions; Kenneth Estess A European Anabasis; DavidLittlejohnsForeign Legions of the Third Reich; Rolf-DieterMllersAn derSeitederWehrmacht[OntheSideoftheWehrmacht];HansWernerNeulensAndeutscher Seite: Internationale Freiwillige von Wehrmacht und SS [On theGermanSide:InternationalVolunteersoftheWehrmachtandtheSS];andJ.Lee

Readys The Forgotten Axis: Germanys Partners and Foreign Volunteers inWWII.Finally,afewscholarlyarticlesfocusontheFrenchvolunteers,suchasOwenAnthonyDaveys TheOrigins of the Lgion desVolontaires Franaiscontre le Bolchevisme; Albert Merglens Soldats franais sous luniformeallemand 19411945; and James G. Shieldss Charlemagnes Crusaders:FrenchCollaborationinArms19411945.Theabovestudiesmostlyfollowtherulesofacademicwriting.Theirauthorsprovideevidenceforwhattheyassert,they indicate in foot-or endnoteswhere that evidencecanbe found, and theyincludeabibliography.Readers,asaresult,can thusreturn to thesources thatthe historians have furnished, check them, and possibly argue that they findthemincompleteorsusceptibletobeinginterpreteddifferently.

2. Popularizations based largely on interviews and correspondence with survivingparticipants. Works that fall under this category are more numerous thanscholarlystudies.InFrance,theyaremainlyduetothreeauthors:PierreMabire,EricLefvre,andSaint-Loup.MabirewrotefourbooksabouttheFrenchSS:LaBrigade Frankreich, La Division Charlemagne,Mourir Berlin [To Die inBerlin],Mourir pourDantzig [To Die for Danzig]; and two books about theBelgianvolunteers:LgionWallonie: AuFront de lEst andBrigade dassautWallonie: La Perce de Tcherkassy [Assault BrigadeWallonie: The BreakoutfromCherkassy]. In collaborationwith Lefvre, he added a trilogy about theLVF: La LVF 1941: Par -40 devant Moscou, La Lgion perdue: Face auxpartisans1942[TheLostLegion:FacingthePartisans1942],andSurlespistesde laRussiecentrale:LesFranaisde laLVF1943 [On theTrails ofCentralRussia: The French of the LVF 1943]. Saint-Loup, besides his memoirs LesPartisansandGtterdmmerung,wroteabookabouttheLVF:LesVolontaires;two books about the French SS:LesHrtiques andLesNostalgiques; and abook about the DivisionWallonie:Les SS de la Toison dOr [The SS of theGoldenFleece].Unlikethescholarlystudiesmentionedabove,theseworksarenotconsistentlydocumented.Mabireindicatesinforewordsthathisaccountsarebasedon reminiscences and documents suppliedby the formervolunteers(1973,7;1975,15).Hesinglesoutasparticularlyusefulthemanuscriptwrittenby Robert Soulat, the former secretary of the Division Charlemagne, amanuscriptthatacademichistorianssuchasGordonandRoussohavealsobeenable to consult, although it has so far remained unpublished. Similarly,Saint-Loup explains in Warnings that he has relied on survivors testimonies(1965,9),aswellasonnewlyuncoveredFrenchandGermanarchives(1963,9). Yet the only such archives he mentions are those included inHitlerslagebesprechungen, the published transcripts of conversations held atHitlersheadquartersduringthewar.NeitherMabirenorSaint-Loup,moreover,refer their information to the source inwhich it is supposedlygrounded; theirtexts may include short bibliographies, but they admit neither notes, norindications of the type according toX or as Z toldme.UnlikeGiolittosVolontaires franais sous luniformeallemand andGordonsCollaborationisminFrance, suchworks asLaBrigadeFrankreich andLesHrtiques are thusdifficult to discuss in a scholarly manner. Readers are not provided withdocuments against which they can measure the veracity of what Mabire and

Saint-Loup are asserting. They are invited to trust the data that these authorsfurnish, as well as to show indulgence toward some aspects of the writing.Mabire, for instance, states that his goal in La Brigade Frankreich was tocombinehistoricalrigorandnovelisticcolor(1973,5);andSaint-Loup,thatLes Hrtiques belongs to history, period, as the purpose of the booksnovelistictoneisonlytomakereadingmorepleasant(1965,5).

Richard Landwehrs French Volunteers of the Waffen-SS and Robert Forbess Pour

lEurope:TheFrenchVolunteersoftheWaffen-SSconstituteparticularcases.Theyaretheworksof specialistson theGermanArmy thatSmelserandDaviescallgurus, that is,authorswhocombineapainfullyaccurateknowledgeofdetailsinsuchareasasmedals,uniforms,andvehicles,witharomanticheroicizationoftheWehrmachtandtheWaffen-SS(5).Thus,Landwehrincludesinhisbookawholedocumentaryapparatus,comprisedofphotographsandstatisticsconcerning thenumberof foreigners in theWaffen-SS.Hedoes not, however, refer to sources in the body of his text, which contains neitherfootnotesnorintratextualreferencestootherhistoriansworksorparticipantstestimonies.In contrast, Forbes documents his account of the feats of the Frankreich and theCharlemagneinmostzealousmanner.Manyofthe348pagesofhisbookhavethelookofan old-fashioned scholarly study, as the footnotes often overtake the text, the authorexplaininghowhehasobtainedhisinformationanddiscussingit.Page182totakejustoneexampleadmitssevenlinesoftextand53linesoffootnotes.Typicaloftheauthorsobsession with specifics, the problem is to establish whether the 2nd Battalion of theCharlemagne reached the Pomeranian town ofBrenhutte on February 25 or 26, 1945.Forbess footnotes, however, never refer to French, German, or Russian archives; hisdocumentation is based mostly on interviews and correspondence with survivingwitnesses, as well as on published studies of World War II. While Landwehrs andForbess works do not qualify as scholarly histories, they cannot be viewed aspopularizationseither,becausetheirdistributionremainstooprivate.Mabire,Lefvre,andSaint-LouphavebeenpublishedbymajorFrenchhouses,suchasFayardandLesPressesdelaCit.ButFrenchVolunteersoftheWaffen-SSwasissuedbyLandwehrsownpress,SiegrunenPublications,asmallcompanybasedinOregonthatspecializesinthehistoryoftheWaffen-SS.AsforForbessPourlEurope, itwasprobablypublishedat theauthorsexpense. According to the editorial information furnished on page 4, the book wasprinted and bound by RedwoodBooks, in Trowbridge, England. But that same pagecontains no reference to a publisher, only the phrase This edition is limited to 500copies.Suchasmallrun,togetherwiththebooksA4size,hardbackformat,andqualitypaper,suggestanaudienceofenthusiasticamateursofmilitaria,onereadytopayalargeamountofmoneyforthiskindofwork:Inlate2009,Forbessbookwaspricedat$99.95onAmazonand$125.00onAbebooks.2

While scholarly studies and books based onwitnesses testimonies differ in thewaydataarecollectedanddisplayed,theyalsoofferantitheticalviewsabouttheexactworthofFrances military collaboration. Academic historians have generally stressed that theFrench volunteers came from warring political organizations, never received muchsupport,andinanycaseweretoofewtoplayameaningfulroleonthebattlefield.Shields,for example, argues that the LVF and the French SS divisions accomplished very little

becausetheywereminedbydeepconflictsbetweenChristiancrusadersandneo-paganNazis, narrow nationalists and Europeanists, reactionaries and nationalists, betweenthose owing their paramount allegiance to the Pope and those happy to swear it to theFhrer (102). Merglen, both a general and a military historian, is even more severe.Acknowledging that the volunteers fought with courage and loyalty (83), heneverthelessmaintainsthattheselostsoldiersweredupedandexploited,andthattheirmilitaryroleappearsinsignificant,especiallyifcomparedtothatofthe15,400FrenchvolunteerswhoparticipatedintheSpanishCivilWaronthesideoftheRepublicansafterjoining the International Brigades (84). Making a more balanced judgment, EstesdistinguishesbetweentheperformancesoftheSturmbrigadeFrankreich,theLVF,andtheCharlemagne.Forhim, theFrankreich showed thatvolunteerunits could fight as first-rate troopswhenprovidedwithproperweaponsandcomprehensive training.TheLVF,ontheotherhand,failedmiserably,andtheunluckyCharlemagne,senttoPomeraniawithout artillery and supply columns, could not even dowhat itwas supposed to do maintainthecontinuityofthefront(Chapter6,11).

Conversely, nonacademic historians such asMabire, Lefvre, Landwehr, and ForbeshavesteadilymaintainedthatiftheFrenchvolunteerswerefew,theirmilitarycontributionmust be viewed as most valuable. According to them, the French were not justcourageous,asMerglenhasit; theywerealsoefficient,particularlyinslowingdowntheRussiansinPomeraniaanddelayingthetakingofBerlin.Thispositionisbestexemplifiedby Landwehr who, passing a general judgment on the battle of Berlin, affirms inhyperbolic fashion: Whatever their number, the French SS soldiers in Berlin left anunsurpassablelegacyinheroismandcombateffectiveness(73).Inthisrespect,themerelength of the books that historians such as Mabire and Forbes have devoted to theCharlemagneisalreadyrevealing.Itinscribestheimportancethattheirauthorslendtotheenterprises of the volunteers, as Mabires two studies are respectively 198,000 and200,000wordslong,whereasForbessreaches287,000.

TheGermangeneralsof theWaffen-SSwhowere inchargeof theforeignvolunteershave also assessed the performance of the French units, and their evaluations havegenerally been favorable. Gustav Krukenberg, the General Inspector of theCharlemagne,writes inhis reports that theFrenchbehaved inPomeraniawithextremebravery,enablingthousandsofcivilianstoescape(1980,3).HealsoemphasizesthatinBerlin, the French were involved in combat up to the end, singling out the soldiersVaulot,Fenet,andApollotfortheirexceptionalactionsasmembersofantitankunits(1964, 26, 29).3 Likewise, Felix Steiner hails in his book about the Waffen-SS thefightingspiritoftheFrankreichinGalicia(1958,291),aswellasthebraveryoftheCharlemagneintheoperationsitconductedaroundKolberg(1958,314).Buthesaveshishighest praise for theLgionWallonie,whichwaspart of theGermanarmy that in theUkrainewasencircledinthepocketatCherkassyandhadtobreakoutthroughSovietlines.There, according toSteiner, theBelgiansdidnot just keep theenemy incheck;theyshowedanadmirablespiritof initiative(1958,232)undertheinspiredleadershipofthepassionate,proud,bold,goodheartedLonDegrelle(1958,118).

These disagreements about the exact role and accomplishments of the Frenchvolunteersdonotonlydenotedifferentwaysofcollecting,ordering,andinterpretingdata;theyalsopointtodeeplydivergentideologicalstandpoints.Abidingbytheirprofessional

standards, theacademichistorianswhohave investigatedFrancesmilitarycollaborationhaveusuallystriventoremainneutralandobjective.However,theyhavenotalwaysbeenable(orwilling)toconcealwheretheystoodwithrespecttothecausethatthevolunteershad defended fromBelorussia toBerlin.Giolitto concludes his study by deploring thatthemost upright among the volunteers did not place their enthusiasm and taste foractionattheserviceofanidealaimedatfreeingtheircountry,choosinginsteadtohelpthetorturerswhosegoalwastoenslaveFrance(443).Likewise,afterratingtheroleofthevolunteersasinsignificant,Merglenendshisarticlebycallingformoreresearchonthe young people from Alsace and Lorraine, who were forcibly incorporated into theGermanarmy.AccordingtoMerglen, thissubjecthasbeenoverlooked,althoughit isofnational interest; scholars should thus take it up instead of investigating the poorFrenchsoldiersoftheLVFandtheWaffen-SS,whommiseryorideologyledintothevoluntaryservitudeimposedbythevictorandexploiteroftheircountry(84).4

Attheotherendofthepoliticalspectrum,Mabire,Saint-Loup,Landwehr,andForbeshave insisted that thevolunteerswere, if not on the good side, at least on a side thatdeservesrehabilitationinthefaceofcontinuingslander.Asascholarofallthingsmilitaryand a supporter of right-wing causes such Algrie franaise and Autonomy forNormandy,MabiredisplaysthroughouthisbooksontheFrankreichandtheCharlemagnetheutmostadmirationforthedisciplineandbattlefieldefficiencyoftheWaffen-SS;it isnoaccidentthathehadwrittenseveralstudiesonthedifferentunitsofthisorganization,forinstance,ontheDivisionsNordland,Hitlerjugend,andGtzvonBerlichingen.Saint-Loup,politically,isevenmoreofanextremistthanMabire.Anavowedfascistandracist,heseestheFrenchwhoenlistedintheGermanarmy,andespeciallyintheWaffen-SS,asbelonging to an elite: to the handful of men who blow open the moral and spiritualframeworksoftheirtime,whorepresentthedynamicelementoftheevolutioncuriouslynamedmovementofhistory,andwhocarryalongwiththem,inthelongortheshortrun, the vegetativemasses (1963, 10). Landwehr is as explicit as Saint-Loupwhen itcomes to proclaiming the elite status of theWaffen-SS, aswell as the rightness of thecausethattheyandtheFrenchvolunteersdefendedonthebattlefield.Accordingtohim,the conflictwas not just betweenGermany and theUSSR; itwas betweenEurope andAsiatic Russia, the foreign Waffen-SS being in this regard at the vanguard of theEuropeanArmy thatwasbattlingforWesternCivilizationandwhosestorymustbeforeverrememberedasatriumphofthehumanspiritengagedinnobleendeavor(8).

Viewedfromanideologicalstandpoint,thejudgmentsthattheGermangeneralspassontheir foreign troopsareno lessbiased.Steiner spentmostofhispostwar life seeking torestorethereputationoftheWaffen-SSacorpsthataccordingtohimhadbeenunfairlyattackedbypeopleunfamiliarwithitshistoryanditsexactroleduringtheconflict.Inthisrespect,thetitlesofSteinersbooks,DieFreiwilligenderWaffen-SS:IdeeundOpfergang[The Volunteers of theWaffen-SS: Idea and Sacrifice] andDie Armee der Gechteten[TheArmyoftheOstracized],arealreadyrevealingfortheypointtotheirauthorswishtorehabilitatetheorganizationofwhichhewasazealousmember.WhatSteinerwritesabouttheFrenchandBelgiantroopsmustbeunderstoodin thispolemicalcontext.Bothunits,according to him, fought basically for an idea; they sacrificed themselves for justcauses, such as the defense of theWest; and their survivingmemberswere inequitablyoutlawed after the war, victims of a justice system that was looking for scapegoats

(1958, 9).Krukenbergs reports have adifferent slant.Whilepraising theCharlemagne,Krukenberg is also concerned with establishing that he did his best to reorganize theDivisionandthentocarryoutthehopelesstaskofdefendingBerlinagainsttheRussians.Histarget,therefore,isnotthepeoplewhowronglychargetheWaffen-SSforhavingbeeninvolvedincriminalactivities.ItistheNazipoliticalandmilitaryleadershipthatfailedtoplan for an efficient defense of the capital, thus deceiving and sacrificing both thecivilianpopulationthathadremainedthereandtheforeigntroopsthathadcometohelp(1964,37).Moreself-servingly,Krukenbergalsoinsiststhatitwouldhavebeeneasyforhimto leavethecity,headwest,andbecomeaprisoner-of-warof theAmericans(1964,42).Instead,outofrespectforthevolunteers,heelectedtostayinBerlin(1964,43).HisonlyoptionwasthentosurrendertotheRussians,whosentencedhimto25yearsinjailfor causing aprejudice to theRedArmy throughmilitary resistance inPomerania andBerlin (1964, 43). Krukenberg eventually was freed after 11 years in East Germanprisons,andhesettledintheBonnarea.

Mypurpose,as Istatedearlier, isnot to judge theactionsof theFrenchvolunteers. Ihave provided this overview in order to situate, with respect to the availablehistoriography, thememoirs I am about to discuss.Therefore, Iwont seek to establishwhether the LVF, the Frankreich, and the Charlemagne were efficient or not on thebattlefield.NorwillItrytodecidewhetherthevolunteersinfactdefendedajustcause,oratleastacausethatinsomeregarddeservesreconsideration.Mygoalistoprobehowthevolunteers account for their actions and to take up some of the key issues that theirnarratives are raising. I attend next to a problem that is central for all life narratives,namelyauthenticity.

1InApril1942,ontheinitiativeofitsgermanophileministerJacquesBenoist-Mchin,theLavalgovernmentformedtheLgionTricolore,afreecorpsthatwastoincludetheLVFandgofightintheUSSRbearingaFrenchuniform.TheprojectwastorpedoedbytheGermansinSeptember1942,Benoist-Mchinbeingbythesametokenevictedfromthegovernment.Foradetailednarrativeofthisepisode,seeGiolitto(15598).Benoist-Mchinhimselfrecountsthisfailedattempttoradicalizethecollaborationinhismemoir(1985II,134210).

2Anew,lessprivateeditionofPourlEuropewaspublishedinFebruary2010byStackpoleBooksintheirseriesStackpoleMilitaryHistory.Thelistpriceof$21.95wasdiscountedbyAmazonto$14.93,makingthebookmoreaffordable.

3IwanttothankPeterSchttlerforsharingcopiesofProblemeumdieDivisionCharlemagne[ProblemsabouttheCharlemagneDivision]andKampftageinBerlin[DaysofFightinginBerlin],twounpublishedmanuscriptsinwhichKrukenbergaccountsforhisactivitiesasheadoftheDivisionCharlemagneinPomeraniaandBerlin.AccordingtoSchttler,ProblemeumdieDivisionCharlemagnewaswrittenin1980,inresponsetoquestionsaskedbyanunnamedFrenchhistorianorjournalist.AsforKampftageinBerlin,itwaswrittenin1964attherequestofCorneliusRyanwhowasdoingresearchforhisbookTheLastBattle.SchttlerhimselfispreparingabiographyofKrukenberg.

4Merglensarticlewaspublishedin1977,andthehistorianswishthatmoreresearchonthemalgrnousbeundertakenhassincethenbeenfulfilled.Onthis

subject,seeJeanclos(2003),Riedweg(1995),andRigoulot(1990).

2Authenticity

Like all testimonies, the texts written by the French volunteers first pose problems ofauthenticity. According to Paul Ricoeur, the witness makes the basic statement I wasthere,towhichhe/sheaddsthetwoclausulasBelievemeand(asakindofchallenge)If you do not believeme, ask someone else (2000, 206). In otherwords, as RenaudDulongsubmits inextendingRicoeur, towitnessaneventdoesnotreallymeantobeaspectatorof that event; itmeans to state thatonehas seen that event and to commitoneself to recounting it as one has seen it (1998, 12).WhatRicoeur andDulong sayaboutwitnessingofcourseappliestolifewriting.Authorsofmemoirs,too,pledgetotellthe truth, establishing between themselves and their audience what Philippe Lejeune(1975, 267) calls an autobiographical contract: They promise that the author, thenarrator,andthemaincharacteroftheirnarrativeisthesamepersonwhoreportswithsincerity,tothebestofhis/herrecollection,whathe/sheexperiencedatacertaintimeandplace.

Verificationsandguarantees

Given this initial promise, historians, journalists, or merely inquisitive readers are ofcourseentitledtocheckwhetherthewitnesswasreallythere,eitherbyaskingsomeoneelse (i.e.,otherwitnesses)orbyconfronting thecontentof the testimonywitharchivalresearch.Inshort,asLaurentDouzouputsit,theyareentitledtocallthewitness(269);forbyacceptingtotestify,thewitnesshasgivenuptheproprietyrightshe/shehasoverhis/her past, transferring them to different categories of inquirerswho can use them asthey see fit. In turn exercising these rights, historians and journalists have conductedinvestigations that at times have led to incriminating discoveries, revealing that thewitnesswasnotreallywherehe/sheclaimsthathe/shewas.Inthelatetwentiethearlytwenty-first centuries, the most publicized of these exposures has probably concernedBinjaminWilkomirskis bookFragments:Memories of a Childhood (1996), which theauthorofferedasa testimonyonhisexperiencesasan infant inWarsaw,Maidanek,andAuschwitz-Birkenau. Yet, as the journalist Daniel Ganzfried and the historian StefanMaechlerdeterminedafter investigating the case,Wilkomirskididnot spend thewar inPoland,butratherinSwitzerland;hisrealnamewasBrunoDssekkerthenameofthefamilythathadadoptedhimafterhismotherhadgivenhimupforadoptionwhenhewastwo years old (his name was then Bruno Grosjean). Wilkomirski/Dssekker/Grosjean,therefore,hadnotlivedthroughtheeventsthatherecountsinFragments;hehadforgedthem using testimonies and historical studies about theHolocaust, ofwhich his librarycontainedalargeamount.

Fragments,ofcourse,isnottheonlytextinwhichtheauthorinventedforhim/herselfaninterestingbiography.BenYagoda,inhishistoryofthememoir,affirmsthatthepastfourdecadeswillprobablyberememberedas thegoldenageofautobiographical fraud

(247),aswritersinstalledinthecomfortoftheirhomeshavepretendedtobe,ortohavebeen,prostitutes,drugdealers,victimsofabusiveparents,orHolocaustsurvivors.Anotherwell-knownexampleofthelattertypeoffalsetestimonyisMishaDefonsecasMisha:AMemoir of the Holocaust Years (1998), the story of a six-year-old Jewish girl who,protectedbywolves,searchesaroundEuropeforherdeportedparents.Theactualauthorturned out to be Monique de Wael, a Catholic Belgian woman living in Boston.Confronted with such evidence as her baptismal certificate, de Wael confessed to thedeception.Inherdefense,sheallegedthat,asthedaughterofamanwhoworkedfortheGestapoduringBelgiumsoccupationbytheGermans,shehadalwayswantedtofashionherownidentity.

WhetherDssekeranddeWaelaredeludedordeliberatelyfabricatedtheirtestimoniesis irrelevant tomydiscussionof amemoirists contractualobligations.What their casesshoworconfirmisthatauthorswhopresenttheirtextsaspersonalreminiscencesdotakeachance; opening those texts to procedures of verification, they run the risk of beingchargedwithdistortingtheeventsthattheyrecount,orevenwithforgingthemaltogether.Suchcharges,ofcourse,wouldbemeaninglesstopressagainstanovelistwhowritesalifestory that he/she explicitly offers as fictional; the facts that he/she reports cannot beconfirmedordisproved,whetherbyconsultingdocumentsorbyinterviewingpeoplewhoknew the author. Debates that followed the Defonseca and especially theWilkomirskiaffairs, therefore, demonstrate that the boundary between referential and fictionaldiscourses(Cohn1999),inthisinstance,betweenhistoricalandfictionalmemoirs,isstillwell marked in our culture. Granted, as postcolonial critics have argued, regionaldifferencesmustbetakenintoaccount.Sendingcautionarynotestonarrativetheorists,Sidonie Smith and JuliaWatson (2006) have contended that such genres as the Latin-Americantestimonioshouldnotbejudgedbythestandardsofthewesterntestimony,moregenerally,thatthepoorandthedisenfranchised,whentheytelltheirlives,shouldbeempowered tonegotiate theirownconditions for truthandverifiability.Thequestionofknowingwhether there should be one or several truth conditions for life narratives hasbeenwidelydiscussed,andIwontaskherewhethersuchtextsasI,RigobertaMench:An Indian Woman in Guatemala help the marginalized or, as some critics maintain,deligitimate their livedexperience, leadingtoacorrosiveskepticism(Lauritzen31).Indeed, the problematic life narratives I used as examples of hoaxwere brought out inEuropeandNorthAmerica,andtheverdictinthosecaseswasone-sided;theauthorswereimmediatelycensuredbycritics,bythepublishingbusiness,andinpublicopinion.SuchunivocalresponseshowsthatLejeunesautobiographicalcontractisstillinplace,atleastin the West, and that breaking it has ethical implications. Readers of Fragments andMisha, at any rate, felt betrayedwhen these testimonies were exposed as hoaxes; theywereallthemoreindignantinthecaseofFragmentssinceWilkomirskihadconfirmedhisstoryinnumerousinterviews,acceptedliteraryprizesfromseveralJewishorganizations,andevenguideddiscussiongroupswithotherchildsurvivors.

Investigating theauthenticityof thevolunteersmemoirs isparticularlydifficult. JeanNortonCru,inhisgroundbreakingstudyofsoldierstestimonieswrittenduringandafterWorldWarI,introduceseverytextbysupplyingaseriesofdataconcerningtheauthorsbiography, his membership in a specific military unit, and the reliability of his report.Because several amongmymemoirists are unknown and no information about them is

available,Imustbeginthepresentationoftheauthorsinmycorpusatalowerlevel.Moreprecisely,Imustfirstask:Dowehaveproofofthesepeoplesexistence?AnddowehaveproofthattheyactuallyfoughtalongsidetheGermansthattheirreminiscencesarenot,like Wilkomirskis and Defonsecas, fictional rather than factual? Depending on theirnotorietyandaccomplishmentsbesideswritingonebookofmemoirs,theauthorswhosetestimoniesIamconsideringcanbedistributedintothreemaincategories:

1.KnownfigureswhosebothexistenceandenlistmentintheLVFand/ortheFrenchSSiswellestablished,suchasBassompierre,Gaultier,Laurier,Saint-Loup,andDegrelle. These names may be familiar to specialists of the 1930s and theOccupation, as they are found in studies of the period in general and thecollaboration inparticular.Bassompierrehad functions in theMilice;Gaultier,in theMilice and theVichy government; Laurier and Saint-Loup, under theirbirthnamesPierreVigourouxandMarcAugier,hadactivitiesasjournalists;andDegrellewasawell-knownpoliticianwhoheadedtheproto-fascistRexistPartyinBelgium.

2. Lesser-known figures whose existence nevertheless is attested because theyworkedwithotherpeople,gaveinterviews,orpublishedtextsinadditiontotheirmemoirs,suchasRusco,Rostaing,Costabrava,Bayle,Terlin,Gilles,Sajer,andLa Mazire. Rusco, Rostaing, and Costamagna wrote their books incollaboration; Bayle (1984) and Terlin (1973) contributed pieces to themagazinesHistoramaandHistoria;Gilles (1973)was interviewed inHistoria,andSajer(1993),in39/45Magazine;LaMazire,asmentionedearlier,wasonethemain interviewees inLeChagrin et la piti.Of course, the fact that theseauthors existence is confirmed does not guarantee the authenticity of theirtestimonies.Iwillconsiderlaterthetwomostcontestedcases,thoseofSajerandGilles.

3.Unknownpeoplewhoseonlytraceisthebookthattheyleftabouttheir(supposed)experiences, likeAuvray,Cisay,Dupont,Emmanuelli,Gruber,Malbosse,Mit,Philippet,andtheanonymousauthorofVaeVictis[WoetotheVanquished].Tomyknowledge, these authorshavenevergivenmagazine interviews, and theyhavenotwrittenanytextbeyondtheirmemoirs.Theonlyinformationavailableaboutthemisthatsuppliedintheirbooks,asevenextendedInternetdatabaseslike Google do not offer additional data, merely signaling the mail-orderbusinessfromwhichtheirworkscanbeobtained.Thebookspublishedbythesememoiristsobviously are themostproblematic.They raise thepossibility thatthey were written by someone who then disappeared from public view, asseveral returning volunteers understandably did; that they describe authenticexperiences butwerewritten under a pseudonym for the purpose of avoidinglegal trouble; or that they are works of imagination, whose authors, unlikeWilkomirski,havenotbeenexposed.

Aware of the issues of authenticity thatmemoirsmay raise, publishers often seek to

establish from the start that the texts they are bringing out under this label constitutegenuine testimonies. The need to provide guarantees is especially obvious when the

authorsarelittleknownorevenunknown.Warrantsthatthememoiristwasreallythere,intheseinstances,areoftensuppliedatonceintheparatext,specifically,inwhatGenettecalls the publishers peritext (1987, 20): information located around the text butwithintheconfinesoftheboundvolume,whetheronthebookscover,onthetitlepage,orinthepreface.EmmanuellisEtjaicassmonfusil[AndIBrokemyGun],forexample,was published by Laffont in the series Vcu (literally: Experienced), a label thatimmediately situates the text in the category testimony.Theblurbson thebackcoverconfirm this status, asserting: Aman speaks and his colored language, his loud voicedraw us in. His name is Jean-Baptiste Emmanuelli Together with the informationabout the series, these two sentences immediately trigger Lejeunes autobiographicalcontract:They affirm that the author, the narrator, and themain character here are thesamepersonwho recounts episodes inhisown life.Similarly, theblurbson thebackcoverofLabatsLesPlacestaientchres[TheSeatsWereExpensive]reproduceexcerptsfromareadersreport,inthisinstancethenovelistRogerNimiers,whowrites:WefindherethereasonsEricLabathad,orratherdidnothave,toenlistintheLVFThenweare inRussia,where theFrench, responsibleforensuring thesecurityof therear,playawargameagainst thepartisans thatdemonstratesall their skills.ThepublishinghouseLa Table Ronde, which brought out Les Places taient chres, attests here to thegenuinenessofthebookitisreleasingthroughthejudgmentofonefamedmemberofitseditorialboard,whoapparentlyneverdoubted(didhehaveproof?)thatLabatreallyhadfoughtinBelorussia.1Anotherpublishinghouse,LaJeuneParque,reliesonanevenwilierstrategy when it entrusts the preface of the anonymousVae Victis to Colonel Remy, aprestigiousmemberoftheResistance(thoughonewithright-wingsympathies)whowasin the process ofwriting his own recollections.To be sure,Remy states clearly that hedisapprovesofthechoicesthatthevolunteershadmade.Byprefacingthebook,however,hesubstantiatesthepresentationofVaeVictisasavalid testimony,sanctioningLaJeuneParquesdecisiontobringoutthisanonymouswork.TheBelgianpublisherBibliothqueRoyaleAlbert1erresortstoasimilarschemewhenitincludesaprefacebyaResistancememberandholderoftheCroixdeguerreavecpalmes(aprestigiousdecoration)LouisDeLentdeckerinGrubersNousnironspasTouapse[WeWontGotoTuapse],andtheEditionsArctic,when theyaadd toMarotelsLalonguemarche apreface inwhich thehistorianEricLefvreaffirmsthatitwasforhimanhonortointroduceandannotatethe book (7). By including this type of paratextual information, authors and publishersobviously aim to program the reception of the text; they supply specific instructions ofreading,tellushowtotakethetextasawhole.Onemustemphasize:asawhole.IfVaeVictisandNousnironspasTouapsehadcomewiththegenericsubtitleanovel,ourexpectationsandsubsequent readingwouldhavebeenquitedifferent.Forone thing,wewouldnothaveaskedwhetherguaranteesofthememoirsauthenticitywereprovided,andinwhatforms.

The information about genre provided by the paratext of the volunteers narratives,however,isnotalwaysascategoricalasintheexamplesIhavejustexamined.DupontsAutempsdeschoixhroques[AttheTimeofHeroicChoices]providesacaseinpoint.ThecopyIobtainedfromaninternetbookstoreisinscribednotbyDuponthimselfbutbyhisson,whowrites:ForFranois,inmemoryofmyfather,PierreHenriDupont,andofhis comrades of theDivisionCharlemagne,who sacrificed themselves in order to saveEuropefromBolshevism.Lettheirmemorylive.March2007.B.Dupont.Throughthis

inscription, B. Dupont certifies that his father was indeed a member of theCharlemagne.Buthedoesnotaffirmexplicitly thatAutempsdeschoixhroques ishisfathersmemoir,andtheperitextincludesneitherasubtitlenorblurbsonthebackcover,whichwouldclarify theoddnarrativesituation:Usingaheterodiegeticnarrator,DuponttellsthestoryofHenriDuval,ayoungFrenchmanwhoparticipatessuccessivelyinthecampaignsoftheLVF,theBrigadeFrankreich,andtheDivisionCharlemagne.IsHenriDuvalactuallyPierreHenriDupont,andAutempsdeschoixhroqueswhatLejeunecalls an autobiography in the third person:A text inwhich the author speaks abouthimselfasthoughsomeoneelsewerespeakingabouthim,orasthoughhewerespeakingaboutsomeoneelse(1980,184)?Lifenarrativesconsistentlywritteninthethirdpersonareextremelyrare.LejeuneonlyreferstoTheEducationofHenryAdamsandtoNormanMailersTheArmiesoftheNight,hisotherexamplesbeingofsophisticatedliterarytextsthatmove occasionally from the first to the third person, such as Roland Barthes/parRoland Barthes [published in English as Roland Barthes]. Furthermore, Au temps deschoixhroques isnotanautobiographyin the thirdpersonstrictlyspeaking;authorandmain character do not have the same name, a dissymmetry that cancels theautobiographical contract, or at least calls it into question. The epitext, that is, theinformation about the text provided outside the bound volume, does nothing in thisinstancetosolvethediscursiveandepistemologicalproblemposedbythetextitself.The2009catalogofLHommeLibre,thepublishinghousethatbroughtoutAutempsdeschoixhroques,offersDupontsbookasanhistoricalnovelbutaddsthat theauthor,whenhewas18yearsold,enlistedintheLVFandthenintheCharlemagne.Dupontsnarrativewould thus be a novel, though one that is based (towhat extent?) on the authors ownexperienceontheEasternFront.FrancesBibliothqueNationale,however,classifiesthesameeditionofAutempsdeschoixhroquesunder theSubject(s):WorldWar (19391945) Campaigns and battles USSR French personal narratives Lgion desvolontaires franais contre le bolchevisme Biographies. That is, the BN regardsDupontstextasreferential,notfictional,adecisionthatisconfirmedbythecallnumberassignedtothebook:Indice(s)Dewey:940.541343.(Viewingthebookasliteraturewouldhaveentailedan800callnumber.)Thefactthattheepitextshouldgiveconflictinginformationabout thegenreofAu tempsdeschoixhroques is not insignificant. If thetextisindeedthenarrativeofDupontsactualjourney,thiswouldbetheonlytestimonyofavolunteerwhowentfromtheLVFtotheFrankreichtotheCharlemagneajourneythatnoneoftheothermemoirsinmycorpussofarhasdocumented.

Inadditionto theparatextualassertionthat theauthorswerereally there,severalofthe volunteers memoirs back up their claim to authenticity by providing documentaryevidence.ThefrontcoverofRuscosSto!displaysthephotographofthefourmenwhoare identified in the blurbs (one of them is Rusco), and the book contains otherphotographsconfirmingthattheauthoractuallyfoughtinBelorussia.Similarpicturesarefound in other books, such as Saint-Loups Les Partisans, Bayles De Marseille Novossibirsk,GillessUnancienWaffenSS franaisraconte [AFormerFrenchMemberof theWaffen-SSReports], and especially LobsigersUnSuisse au service dHitler [ASwissinHitlersService],GrubersNousnIronspasTouapse,andPhilippetsEtmetstarobedebal[AndPutYourPartyGownon].LobsigerproudlydisplayshisportraitinSSuniformonthefrontcoverandthenattachessevenphotographsofhimself in theSovietUnion, in Germany with his fiance, and at the German-Swiss border with his father

(n.p.).Philippetsbookcontainsasmanyasfifteenpicturesoftheauthor,eitherinGermanuniform(e.g.,II,21,89),inprisonersclotheswhenhewasinaBelgianjail(e.g.,II,270),orinanelegantsuitafterhisliberationandmarriage(II,323).Philippetisalsocarefultotell (to theextent that it ispossible)whereandwhen thepictures thathe includesweretaken,andtoprovidethenamesofthepeoplewhoappearinthem.Thus,heindicatesinacaption (I, 123) that two of the men in the photograph are Lon Degrelle and theWallonies commandant Lucien Lippert, and that the picture was taken on October 9,1942,on theoccasionofamedalspresentation;more impressively,healso identifies (I,22) thirteen out of the sixteen lesser-knownBelgian volunteerswho pose in front of arailroadwagon, theprecedingandoppositepagesstating that thesetting is theUkraine,andthedateisOctober1941.

Inadditiontophotographsofpeopleandlandscapes,mymemoiristsfrequentlysupplyreproductionsofwrittenevidencethatconfirmtheirparticipationinthewar.Bayle,eagertoprovethathespenttimeinaRussianPOWcamp,includesthephotographofabizarredocument: the Attestation, dated February 10, 1987, in which the vice-consul of theUSSRinParisstatesthatMrAndr(Michel,Edouard)Bayle,bornon20May1926inMarseillewasaprisonerofwarintheUSSRfrom8March1945to8November1945(203).Similarly,Lobsiger exhibits the certificategiven tohimonMay20, 1945by thesecret serviceof theWaffen-SS, showing that HerrBrandenberger, a Swiss civilianemployed in Germany, has been let go at his own request. He attaches the safe-conduct given to him by the Italian partisans in Tyrol upon presentation of the fakeGermancertificate(n.p.),andexplainsthatthesetwoIDsallowedhimtotravelinnorthernItaly forseveralweeksafter theendof thewar (224).Philippet,again, is thememoiristwhosuppliesthemostabundantdocumentation.Anxioustodemonstratethathisservicesatthefrontweredeemedvaluable,hedisplaystheformsacknowledgingthathereceiveddecorations,namelytheOstmedaille(I,123),theEiserneKreuz2.Klasse(II,75),andtheEiserne Kreuz 1.Klasse (II, 112). Likewise, to attest that he was hounded and finallysentencedforhisinvolvementonthesideoftheNazis,heincludestwophotographs:oneofanextractfromtheBelgianIndexofinvestigationsforcrimeagainstthesecurityoftheState, which lists Philippet, Henri-Guillaume-Jean-Joseph among the people beingwantedfor treason(II,237);andthelastpaycheckthathereceivedbeforehisrelease,on7August1948,forhisworkinacoalmineasaconvict(II,277).

The photographs and documents included in such books as Sto! andUn Suisse auservicedHitlerhaveastrongrhetoricalfunction.Theydonotmerelyillustratethetext,inthesensethattheyenhanceitwithpicturesandprovidesuitableexamples.Theyalso,asRolandBartheshasarguedaboutphotographs,createapowerfulrealityeffect:Theobjectthatappears inaphotograph isnecessarily real, sincetherewouldbenophotographwithoutit(1980,120).Inshort,photographsmakeitimpossibletodenythatthethingwas there, and their being mechanically recorded imposes both the idea that the pastexistsand that itsexistence is independent fromacognitivesubject.Butphotographs ingeneral,andwar-relatedphotographsinparticular,alsoraiseseveralissuesofcorrectnessand reliability. Studies about the iconography ofWorldWar II have demonstrated thatpicturescaneasilybefalsifiedor touchedup,and that thedataaboutcharacters,places,andtimeofferedinthecaptionsmustbetreatedwithprudence.JaninaStruk,inherstudyofHolocaustphotographs,has shown that the infamousdeathpitpicture representing

fivenakedmen(includingachild)about tobeshotposesmanyproblemstothescholarconcernedabout accuracy.Dependingon theprint of that photograph,Struk explains, aGermansoldiercanorcannotbeseenpointinghisfingerat thenakedmenontheright-handsideoftheframe(6);andtheaccompanyinginformationlocatesthesceneinmanydifferentplacesandtimes,suchasPoland,Lithuania,andLatvia,and1939,1941,1943,and 1944 (12). Likewise, Barbie Zelizer has pointed out that the photographs of theliberation of Dachau, Buchenwald, and Bergen-Belsen that appeared in the British andAmerican press came with imprecise captions. Whereas the narratives of reportersprovidedminutedetailsofthecampstopography,thevisualrepresentationsofthosecampsoftenleftthemunnamed,illustratinglesstherealityofDachauorBergen-Belsenthanabroad,generalizedatrocitystory(93).

ThephotographsthatfigureinthetextsIamconsideringcausereaderstoposesimilarquestions. For instance, were the pictures of Flemish and French volunteers, whichPhilippet (II,87)andSaint-Loup (1986a,n.p.) affirmwere takennearLeningradandatDjukovo,reallytakenthere?Inbothcases,thesettingisnondescript;itcouldbeanywhereatthefront,andweareinvitedtobelievethatthereferencestoLeningradandDjukovoareindeed accurate. Conversely, one could ask what locations are represented on thephotographsofsoldierswalkingin thesnowthatcomeinBaylesmemoirswithgenericcaptions,suchasIcysnowstormsmustbesurmountedandMovingforwardispainful(n.p.). Since Bayle was a member of the Charlemagne, should we assume that thesepictures were taken in Pomerania in February-March 1945? And could a specialist inWorld War II, identifying places, weapons, and uniforms, tell whether Philippets andSaint-Loups information is correct and complete Bayles captions by disclosingwhicharmyis fighting,where,andwhen?Innoneof thevolunteersmemoirs,moreover,doestheauthor(ortheeditor)answeraquestionthatspecialistsiniconographynowregardasbasic:Whotookthepicture?Whetheraphotographoriginateswithawarcorrespondent,an employee of a propaganda service, a soldierwho owned a camera, or a local in thevicinity,isnotimmaterial.Theidentityandqualificationsofthephotographer,aswellashismembership ina specificgroup, candeterminewhether thepicturewillbe savedornot,howitwillbeused,andwhatitscaptionwilltellorpassoverinsilence.Thephotosthatthetextsinmycorpusincludeobviouslyhavebeensaved;buttheyremainuncredited,as the accompanying captions never specify whether they were taken by the GermanPropagandaService,membersofnewsagencies,orthevolunteersthemselves.2

Similarissuescanberaisedaboutthewrittendocumentsthatthevolunteersmemoirsoccasionallyinclude.AuvrayopensLesderniersgrognards[TheLastGrumblersnamegiven toNapolons soldiers]with a reproduction of his SSSoldbuch (soldiers IDandpaybook),comprisingaportraitofHitlerandthreepagesofpersonalinformation.YetthenameAuvrayisnowheretobefound,alackthatmakesreadersaskwhythisdocumentfiguresinthefirstplace.TheevidenceofferedinLobsigersmemoirsmayprovokesimilarsuspicions.Italianpartisans,asLobsingerexplains,gavehimapassonthebasisofafalseIDfabricatedbytheSS.However,thatIDisdatedMay20,1945,whereastheItaliansafeconductisdatedMay13.WastheSSIDintentionallyantedated?DidtheItaliansoverlookthedate?Ordid theydecidenot to investigateanyfurtherandattend tomore importantbusiness?Howeverthatmaybe,thediscrepancyposesaproblemthatLobsigerdoesnotaddressinthecaptionthatcomeswiththephotographnorinthebodyofthetext.Asisthe

casewithAuvraysSoldbuch,thedocumenthereproducesaboomerangeffect;appendedtoaugment thememoirsauthenticity, theyinfactundermineit,at leastforreaderswhosearchforthiskindofinconsistencyormerelyareattentivetoit.

One might ask, finally, whether the use of a memoir in a scholars documentaryapparatus is itself awarranty of thatmemoirs authenticity. The question can be raisedaboutseveralofthevolunteerstestimonies,whichprofessionalhistoriansemployasvalidsourceswithoutalwaysinterrogatingtheirepistemologicalstatus.SergeMitsCarcassevendre [Carcass for Sale] to take just one example figures in the footnotes of suchmajor studiesof thecollaborationasGordons (e.g., 273,275)andGiolittos (e.g.,334,344,345,349); the twohistoriansalso listMitsmemoir in thebibliographies that theyaffix to their works, on the same plane as academic works and testimonies whoseauthenticityiswellestablished.YetneitherGordonnorGiolittocommentonthefactthatMit is among the volunteers who have never been interviewed, of whom we have nophotograph,andwhoapparentlyhavedisappearedafterthepublicationoftheironlypieceof writing. Readers, in this instance, are asked to trust the authority of the scholar;specifically, they are asked to assume that trade historians such asGordon andGiolittohaveplayedthegamebytherulesthattheyhavechecked,beforedrawingonthem,thevalidityofthetestimoniesthattheyhaveelectedtouse.

TheSajerCase

Issuesofauthenticityhavebeenraisedaboutafewofthememoirsinmycorpus.Themostdebated case has been Sajers,whoseLeSoldat oubli has provoked lively discussionsamong servicemen, specialists in military history, and more casual readers. The basicproblemhere is a simpleone. It is todeterminewhetherSajer trulywason theEasternFrontwiththeGrossdeutschlandDivision,asheclaimsthathewas,orinventedthestoryusingnovels,histories,andotherpeoples lifenarrativesforhisdocumentation. Inotherwords, it is to determine whether Le Soldat oubli is a genuine testimony or a hoax,similar toWilkomirskisFragments,MishaDefonsecasMisha, andother fakememoirsaboutWorldWarII.

ThefirsteditionofLeSoldatoubli,broughtoutin1967bythemainstreampublishinghouseLaffont,comeswiththegenericsubtitleRcit,thatis,Narrative.ThetermrcitisambiguousinFrench,asit isfoundasasubtitletobothreferentialtexts,suchasRobertAntelmesBuchenwaldmemoirLEspcehumaine (published inEnglish asTheHumanRace),andtofictionalones,suchasAndrGidesLImmoraliste.Extensiveblurbsofthatsame edition of Sajers memoir are more explicit. Starting on the back cover andcontinuing on the flap of the front cover, they state that the book surpasses in truth,horror,andgreatnessall the textswrittenonthesubject,becausetheauthorhasreallyexperiencedall thathereportsandknowshowtoseethingsandmakethemvisibleindetailwith anextraordinarypower. Readers, theblurbs conclude, cannotdoubt thateverythinginthisbookistrue;theyknowthattheyarenotdealingwithliterature