sign in sign up
<<
Home , Charles Maurras, Georges Valois, Jacques Doriot, Marcel Bucard, Pierre Pucheu, Popular Front (France)

Robert Soucy. French : The Second Wave, 1933-1939. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995. xii + 352 pp. $35.00, paper, ISBN 978-0-300-05996-0.

Reviewed by Irwin Wall

Published on H- (March, 1996)

Many years ago, when I frst began my stud‐ Feu, was not at all, but rather a form of ies of French , I turned naturally to adult boy-scouting. the works of the late French historian, Annie I have argued that both Kriegel and Remond Kriegel. She asserted that Communism was un- were wrong, totally wrong. Neither Communism French, essentially a Russian phenomenon, graft‐ nor fascism were foreign imports. Indeed, after ed artifcially onto the French social organism due reading , who traced fascism back to to an accidental conjuncture of circumstances, the Action Francaise, I was convinced there strangely to take root and become a power‐ that both owed their very existence to French po‐ ful political force. From my frst exposure to it, I litical inventiveness. All this is to explain that I be‐ found this thesis bordering on the absurd: was gin with a prejudice in favor of the challenging not France the country of Gracchus Babeuf and conclusions of , which seem to me the conspiracy of equals, of Saint-Simon and eminently commonsensible. The controversy over Charles Fourier, of Louis Blanc and Auguste Blan‐ fascism in France has in recent years been domi‐ qui? Did not even Leon Blum at the Congress of nated by the work of Israeli historian Zev Stern‐ Tours in 1920 regard Bolshevism as a form of hell. According to some commentators, Sternhell come home to roost? The parallel with did for French fascism what American historian the work of Rene Remond immediately struck me; did for Vichy, demonstrating con‐ for him, fascism was equally un-French, a foreign clusively its deep roots in the national experience. import to which the French were fortunately im‐ Soucy agrees with Sternhell on this point: there mune. The few genuinely "fascist" groups in was nothing "un-French" about fascism. But Stern‐ France, like the Francistes of and hell takes the argument a step further: fascism, he the of , were inspired argues, had its roots on the revolutionary left. It from across the Alps or the Rhine and remained owed as much to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Al‐ tiny and marginal. The genuine mass movement bert Sorel as to and Maurice Bar‐ led by Colonel Francois de La Rocque, the Croix de H-Net Reviews res, and its continued problematic was to fnd a were also extraordinarily adept in taking the way to revise Marx in a way that successfully syn‐ wind out of its sails: Raymond Poincare in thesized and the national experience. 1926-28, Gaston Doumergue in 1934, and Edouard Sternhell follows the Italian Rienze de Felice, who Daladier in 1938 all ended left-wing experiments insists upon the revolutionary nature of Italian with government in a manner satisfactory to the Fascism, similarly arguing in favor of a French French bourgeois elite, which fnanced the fascist fascism that was "neither right nor left". groups and participated in their leadership. In no Soucy refuses to accept Sternhell's main line sense were the French ever "immune" to fascism. of argument; indeed both his excellent studies, Indeed, given the sorry history of Vichy, one won‐ French fascism: the First Wave (1986) and now ders at the proclivity of scholars to conclude any‐ French fascism: the Second Wave are largely de‐ thing else. voted to refuting Sternhell on precisely this point. It is tempting to leave the question right For Soucy, there is nothing remotely leftist about there, giving appropriate credit to Soucy for the fascism. On the contrary, fascism was a new vari‐ thoroughness of his research and the systematic ety of authoritarian and right-wing way in which he applies his fndings to his model. that sought to defeat the Marxist The conclusion seems inescapable. Whether one threat and the political that allowed it focuses on the Croix de Feu or any other of the to exist in the frst place. Fascism was dictatorial, eight groups under scrutiny, the same result hierarchical, para-military, socially conservative, emerges. If it looks like a duck, walks and quacks union-busting, imperialist, rhetorically anti-bour‐ like a duck, it must be a duck! geois but substantively defensive of bourgeois in‐ Why, then, do I leave the reading of Soucy terests and the existing class structure. In two with a lingering sense of dissatisfaction and books Soucy systematically applies this model to doubt? The trouble, it seems to me, lies in the no less than eight French putatively fascist move‐ methodology. Construct a model, apply it in a giv‐ ments and organizations, from the Jeunesses Pa‐ en number of cases, show the ft, and the conclu‐ triotes and the Cagoule through the Croix de Feu sion is obvious. There are two possible problems and 's Parti Populaire Francais here, following David Hackett Fischer's Histori‐ (PPF). All these movements, says Soucy, meet the ans' Fallacies. One is semantic; in arguing about defnition without a doubt. All, including the whether the Croix de Feu was "fascist," are we not Croix de Feu-- which Sternhell and the "consen‐ arguing about mere words and what it is appro‐ sus" historians, as Soucy calls them, exclude from priate to call things? This is not a very substantive the Fascist lexicon--fully qualify as Fascist. Here, argument. Or, on the other hand, in constructing Soucy follows Canadian historian William Irvine, models and explaining phenomena, do we not fall adding copious evidence in an efort to show that into the "essentialist" fallacy of ascribing an un‐ La Rocque's movement was indeed fascist. And derlying "essence" or reality to what is, after all, lest we be tempted to underestimate the signif‐ an intellectual construct or model, in this case cance of this fnding, Soucy reminds us that the Fascism. Thus, for Soucy, para-militarism would Croix de Feu, according to some commentators, seem to be an "essential" quality of fascism while had 1.2 million members at its high point in 1937. anti-Semitism is not. The philosophical fuzziness Hitler's had only 800,000 when it in this modus operandi appears throughout seized power in 1933. Fascism failed in France-- Soucy's description of the Croix de Feu (CF), in until the war--because the economic crisis was which we fnd that the "ft" to the model is never less severe and the left united against it, among as precise as one would like. Thus, in reference to other reasons. French conservative politicians

2 H-Net Reviews street politics, the CF was "more fascist than any a fascist, why, like the proverbial duck, does he other formation of the Third Republic" (p. 137). walk and talk like one? Fascism has suddenly become a question of de‐ Not being mainly polemicists, historians gree. Elsewhere the CF was fascist because "it did should endeavor to control their political pas‐ not exclude members with Fascist sympathies" sions. It seems to me that arguing about whether (p. 142). This is hardly a meaningful test. Nor was the CF was or was not "fascist" may obscure the the CF, in its professions of , "sin‐ point. Is it not sufcient to describe fairly and ac‐ cerely democratic" (p. 143). curately the CF's politics? Soucy has done this, elu‐ "How many politicians are?" one might well cidating in often painful detail its authoritarian‐ ask. La Rocque, we are told elsewhere, was "more ism, para-militarism, anti-liberalism, anti- Marx‐ than a conservative; he was a " (p. ism, anti-feminism, anti-communism, and eventu‐ 147). This does not seem very helpful either in de‐ ally, its anti-Semitism. He shows its corporatist-in‐ scribing fascists. Nor is it useful to observe that af‐ spired concern to achieve class harmony at the ter 1940, lest we want to exculpate La Rocque for expense of the workers in a nationalist frame‐ eventually joining the Resistance, he acted "more work, and he quotes copiously from its many ex‐ fascistically than democratically" (p. 147), whatev‐ pressions of admiration for the achievements of er that may mean. Similar imprecision creeps into Hitler and Mussolini. Indeed, one of the strongest Soucy's discussion of the Solidarite Francaise, points of Soucy's work lies in his repeated demon‐ which he occasionally describes as giving certain stration that virtually every para-military, author‐ doctrines a "fascist twist," or holding a cluster of itarian group of the right in France advocated or‐ attitudes that were "undeniably fascist," or else‐ thodox economic capitalist solutions of the era, where, "highly fascist" (pp. 82, 88, 103). cutting expenditures and balancing budgets at the I suspect that our politics creep into our expense of the working class. He demonstrates nomenclature. Sternhell and Remond incline to that militants of the CF moved in and out of the the right; Soucy and I, to the left. The former are many rightist groups in French politics, with as‐ parsimonious in their use of the fascist moniker, tonishing ease. He demonstrates conclusively that insisting that strong distinctions be used to sepa‐ Doriot and the PPF shared the politics of the CF, rate conservatives and fascists. Soucy and I would and that the social or leftist concerns of the one probably agree with American historian Arno and the other were largely a sham designed to Mayer that fascism is counter-revolutionary and give psychological, not material, satisfaction to that it lies along a continuum of rightist move‐ workers. Ex- communist Doriot's revolutionary as‐ ments from simple conservative to reactionary to pirations were a thing of the past after he turned fascist. Logically, and particularly if Soucy is, like I fascist in 1936. When all is said and done, what am, a veteran of the American political battles of does Sternhell or Remond achieve by asserting the 1960s, we may be inclined to apply more that La Rocque was not a fascist because he was a freely the term, or epithet, "Fascist!" Journalist poor orator or because he refused to attempt a Robert Scheer wrote recently in the Los Angeles coup d'etat at the end of the 1930s? And what Times, that Republican presidential candidate does Soucy gain by insisting on the contrary? It Patrick Buchanan was not a fascist, before enu‐ matters little what one calls La Rocque in the end. merating his less than admirable qualities. For Vichy showed us the depths to which the tradi‐ polemical reasons, I might be tempted to say, had tional French right was capable of sinking with‐ I written Scheer's column, that if Buchanan is not out calling upon the French "fascists". Sufcient unto the day is the evil thereof.

3 H-Net Reviews

ROBERT SOUCY REPLIES TO IRWIN WALL gandists direct their ideological appeals? From There have been several reviews of my what social groups did French fascism derive French Fascism: the Second Wave, 1933-39 (until most of its popular support? Were there difer‐ now only in , London and Italian newspa‐ ences between fascist rhetoric and fascist reality? pers), but Irwin Wall is the frst reviewer who What I found in doing the research with such seems to have read the whole book. Some of the questions in mind was that certain ideological previous reviews reminded me of the time many patterns emerged from the evidence that repeated years ago when I asked Frederick Artz, my prede‐ themselves from movement to movement. >From cessor at Oberlin College, how to go about writing these patterns came my conclusions (I prefer the a book review. His reply was: "If you have the word -- "conclusions" to "model", since in my time, read the book frst." Wall is a more conscien‐ mind the former comes after, not before, the re‐ tious reviewer than many, and for that, as well as search is conducted). When the evidence showed for his words of praise for my book, I am grateful. divergences from these patterns, I acknowledged He also raises some interesting objections to cer‐ them, as in the case of left fascist movements like tain aspects of my book to which I have been Marcel Deat's "Neo-Socialism" and Gaston asked to reply. Bergery's Common Front (Wall's comment that Wall faults me for "applying" a model to eight "for Soucy, there is nothing remotely leftist about French fascist movements with a deductive fascism" disregards the section of my book on left methodology that predetermines the outcome: fascism). In the end, I hoped to present my fnd‐ "Construct a model, apply it in a given number of ings with more complexity than reductionism, cases, show the ft, and the conclusion is obvious." presenting the reader with a picture of French If this was indeed the way I approached the sub‐ fascist public pronouncements fuctuating in re‐ ject, I would make the same criticism. However, I sponse to changing political circumstances. The would like to think that I have a greater respect latter included acknowledging the grey areas be‐ for historical evidence than Wall's comment sug‐ tween-- and the tug-of-war within--fascist and gests and that my approach was more inductive democratic conservative movements. than deductive. Wall credits me with being more Since some of my conclusions difered from methodologically sophisticated than I am. I simply those of Sternhell, Remond, and others, I present‐ read all I could about French nationalist move‐ ed considerable evidence on behalf of these con‐ ments of the 1920s and 1930s with certain ques‐ clusions rather than merely engaging in unsub‐ tions in mind--some of the questions, to be sure, stantiated theorizing. One of my objections to the having been raised by previous scholars of Euro‐ consensus school, that is, to a group of scholars pean fascism. Among these questions were: how who insist that French fascism was "a revision of "socialist" were these movements? Who fnanced ", which was deeply at odds with the tra‐ them? What were their views on political democ‐ ditional right, is that it ignores massive evidence racy, social , Marxism, , para- to the contrary. For too long, studies of French fas‐ militarism, imperialism, trade unions, working- cism (often written by political scientists, not his‐ class strikes, social welfare spending, taxation, ed‐ torians) have indulged in brilliant conceptual ac‐ ucation, religion, culture, , gender, morali‐ robatics that ignore inconvenient facts. Wall im‐ ty, "decadence," violence, etc.? How did their posi‐ plies that I too ignore facts that do not "ft" my tions on these issues compare with those of Ital‐ "model", although he never indicates what those ian and fascist movements of the era? facts may be. If Wall is correct, the solution is sim‐ To what social groups did French fascist propa‐ ple: challenge my conclusions with counter-evi‐

4 H-Net Reviews dence. Sinc Wall himself seems to fnd my evi‐ nore facts that do not ft my "model"? I hope not. dence convincing, I am at a loss as to what it Indeed, one of the main points of my book is that would take to satisfy him. Rather than assuming, it is a mistake to try to freeze the realities of fas‐ as some deconstructionists might, that one inter‐ cism into some static construct that disregards pretation of fascism is as biased as another, thus fascist opportunism in action. Although fascism is discrediting all attempts to understand seriously a not "suddenly" a matter of degree, it is, in fact, a phenomenon that has harmed so many people, is matter of degree, for the most part a more ex‐ it not better to adopt a less frivolous standard, one treme and brutal version of beleaguered conser‐ emphasizing the importance of evidence in mak‐ vatism. Depending on the circumstances, some ing a case for one interpretation over another? former fascists supported democratic conser‐ As for the "semantic" question, that is, vatism when it was expedient and some former whether applying the word "fascist" or not to the democratic conservatives supported fascism Croix de feu (CF) is quibbling over "mere words" when it was expedient. In 1924 Mussolini claimed and therefore not substantive, I can only reply he wanted to save Italian parliamentary democra‐ that the very real victims of fascism throughout cy and in 1932 Hitler was still an electoral politi‐ between 1919 and 1945 (some of whose cian. Did this make their fascism "essentially" victimization Colonel de La Rocque and other democratic? In 1934 La Rocque denounced French fascists encouraged) experienced fascism democracy, in 1936 he defended it, and in 1940 he in an all too substantive way. If what they suf‐ denounced it once again. Not only is the "ft to the fered was an "intellectual construct," then it was a model never as precise as one would like", but no construct with very real consequences. Radical one familiar with European fascist movements of deconstructionism reminds me of the medieval the should expect--or "like"--such monk who, returned from study at the University a ft. Here, as in other places, I fnd myself more in of Paris to the farm where he was raised, demon‐ agreement with Wall than not. Since the introduc‐ strated to his father with the most rigorous tion to my study attempts not merely to defne but scholastic logic that the breakfast eggs sitting on also to present several of the fundamental charac‐ the table before them did not exist. "Fine," said teristics of European fascism, emphasizing fas‐ the father, and he ate the eggs, leaving his son cism's fuctuating response to changing circum‐ with none. My encounters with various post-mod‐ stances, I will leave it to readers in general to ernist reincarnations of this monk may be why, judge how essentialist or historicist I have been. after teaching several courses in European intel‐ Wall oversimplifes my argument when he lectual history, I always look forward to teaching says that I claim that the CF was fascist "because" social history once again: facts, like eggs, are so it did not exclude members with fascist sympa‐ satisfying. thies. This was one of many reasons, which alone My taste for may also be why I ob‐ is hardly conclusive but which in tandem with ject to consensus historians who defne fascism as others is part of a case. One element alone doth essentially left-wing and then exclude from the not fascism make, but a cluster of elements form‐ category of fascism all French authoritarian ing a fascist confguration does. movements that have been right-wing (including In my book, I question the sincerity of the CF's the Croix de feu and the )--thus republicanism, to which Wall asks: "How many indulging in what William Irvine has called the politicians are [sincere]"? My answer includes "defnitional game". Have I done the same in re‐ Jean Jaures, Pierre Mends-France, George McGov‐ verse? Am I an "essentialist" in reverse? Do I ig‐ ern, Jesse Jackson, Tom Harkin, Richard Gephardt,

5 H-Net Reviews

Patricia Shroeder, Bill Bradley and a long list of using the word "fascist" loosely is that not only is others. We should be careful about denigrating it unfair when applied to democratic conserva‐ "politicians" generically (as fascists in the 1930s tives, but also that it allows the users to be dis‐ did), since less democratic alternatives--be they missed as glib when other criticisms they have to capitalist or socialist--have an even worse track make may be quite valid. record. Some of Patrick Buchanan's past praise of It is unclear to me why pointing out the "reac‐ Hitler and problematizing of Auschwitz and his tionary" aspects of La Rocque's thought--for exam‐ present scapegoating of immigrants and decrying ple, his desire to turn the clock back sixty years of cultural decadence is indeed disturbing, al‐ where the rights of labor unions were concerned-- though the fact that he has raised the issue of the is "not helpful in describing fascists." Not all reac‐ increasing polarization of wealth in the United tionaries have been fascists, but on a number of States (and not just Jewish wealth) puts him at issues fascists have been --as my odds with most mainstream European fascists of book partially demonstrates. the 1930s. So far, Buchanan has not attacked elec‐ "More fascistically than democratically" toral democracy as such, although his joining the means what it says, since I do not fnd fascism to hue-and-cry against "Washington" (parliament) be democratic. Wall cites this phrase in isolation has fascist antecedents. Even if Buchanan's public from the extensive case preceding it, a case sup‐ statements fall short of full-fedged fascism, I do ported by a number of precise examples. As for think that one of the important things to be my use of such gradations as "fascist twist", "high‐ learned from the history of fascism, including ly fascist", and "undeniably fascist", I again refer French fascism, is that fascists do not necessarily readers of my book to my contextualist approach, show all their cards at once and that it is impor‐ i.e., fascists acknowledged more of their fascism tant to resist early signs of fascism in order to pre‐ under some circumstances than others. For exam‐ vent its subsequent amplifcation. Had more of ple, following the 's ban on French Germany's conservative Christians resisted para-military movements in 1936 (which forced when in 1933 Hitler moved frst against the Croix de feu to reconstitute itself as the "demo‐ Marxists and (while sparing most conserva‐ cratic" Parti social francais), La Rocque, who was tives), they would not have been so vulnerable lat‐ no dummy, muted his para-militarism, thus ap‐ er. While diferent fascist practices can be applied pearing less fascist. to a greater or lesse degree, there is the danger that the lesser may pave the way for greater. In the 1960s, for what it is worth, I was a Buchanan is not "a" fascist, but there are fascist el‐ young "Old Leftist" who found some of the tactics ements in his and that is sufcient rea‐ of "New Leftists" not only counter-productive but son to oppose him. repugnant, as reminiscent of tactics employed by nazis in Germany in the 1930s. I preferred George Wall may be right in claiming that what Orwell to Mario Savio, head of the free speech counts in the end is not whether or not we label movement at Berkeley (Nor am I fond today of po‐ La Rocque and certain other French authoritarian litically-correct thought police on American uni‐ conservatives as "fascist,", but whether we under‐ versity campuses, however much I favor some of stand what they did and, more importantly, why the goals of political correctness). In the 1960s, I they did it. My book is primarily devoted to the was opposed to American intervention in Viet‐ latter. Still, if using the word "fascism" alerts us nam but did not consider Lyndon Johnson or against certain cluster of attitudes which once in‐ Richard Nixon to be "fascists". The trouble with

6 H-Net Reviews spired, and might again inspire, various brutali‐ ties, so much the better. Vichy did include a number of previous French fascists in its government ( and Eugene Deloncle, for example), some of whom were instrumental in helping the Germans "solve" the Jewish Question. Petain in France--and also Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, Pilsuds‐ ki in Poland, and Horthy in Hungary--welcomed individual fascists into their governments while resisting the eforts of native fascist leaders to re‐ place them as heads of state. Finally, I would like to emphasize that I agree with Sternhell in maintaining that there was a sig‐ nifcant fascist in France before the Vichy years (our disagreement is over what con‐ stituted some of the major elements of that tradi‐ tion). To deny, as many French scholars have, the considerable appeal of fascist ideas in France be‐ tween 1924 and 1944 is to deny a signifcant part of France's past, a denial that is dysfunctional when it comes to avoiding the mistakes of the past in the future. But it would also be wrong, indeed, silly, to accuse the in toto of fas‐ cism or to suggest that all political camps during this period were equally culpable (Bernard Henri- Levy comes close to the latter in his book, L'Ideologie francaise). Nor do I think that Francois Mitterand should be condemned in toto for his having once belonged to the Croix de feu, having once worked for Vichy, and having remained friends after the Second World War with a former Vichy police chief who had persecuted Jews. Many French people, especially on the political left and left-center, resisted fascism during the interwar period and under Vichy, and Mitterand during his long post-war political career did much that was profoundly anti-fascist. Copyright (c) 1996 by H-Net, all rights re‐ served. This work may be copied for non-proft educational use if proper credit is given to the au‐ thor and the list. For other permission, please con‐ tact [email protected].

7 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at http://www.uakron.edu/hfrance/

Citation: Irwin Wall. Review of Soucy, Robert. French Fascism: The Second Wave, 1933-1939. H-France, H-Net Reviews. March, 1996.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=318

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

8