…let me start by saying that I think Hitler, the German Nazi regime, and the ideology behind it was very, very evil.
With that disclosure, let’s move on to the subject of this post: Maurice Papon was born in 1910 and served in the French Vichy government, which collaborated with the Nazis after the surrender to Germany. After the war ended, he somehow managed to hide his role in the Vichy government and went on to have a successful career in politics.
Yet it wasn’t until 1981, at the age of 70 when his career was already at an end, that documents were discovered which found Papon signing the deportation of 1,700 Jews to Auschwitz. This led to an investigation, a trial, and finally his conviction in 1998 of crimes against humanity. After the guilty verdict, he fled to Switzerland, but was caught in 1999 and jailed for just three years, after which was freed because of bad health. He died today, five years after being released after serving just three years of his 10 year sentence.
There are plenty of reasons to punish Papon for his crimes over his career. As chief of the Paris police in 1958, he was in charge when officers killed protestors at student and leftist demonstrations, and when colonial dissidents “disappeared.” Yet when it comes to the European view of war crimes, it’s almost as if the statute of limitations works in reverse: the incident has to “ripen” before anyone gives a shit—the only incident for which he went on trial was the one that was more than 40 years old. At least the case of Papon was one where the investigation was undertaken before he was dead… but to engage in an exhaustive investigation, followed by a trial, conviction, and then early parole on “health issues” (he lasted more five more years), seems absurd to me.
(More on Europe’s INSANE jurisprudence in regards to war crimes here, here, here, here… you get the point.)
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Martin J Frid
February 18, 2007
2:02 pm
Incidentally, I would like to ask: What is the American view of war crimes? Has any American ever been charged and found guilty? Or is that an invention that serves U.S. purposes, as long as it applies to others? I think there were one or two Americans who were soft on Nazis, too... What happened to them?
mark safranski
February 18, 2007
4:10 pm
It has little to do with jurisprudential theories and much to do with cowardice.
It takes a great deal of courage to go after a powerful official with influential friends- prosecuting a pensioner, not so much. Same reason European leftist judges feel free to indict CIA agents for renditions but not KGB and Pasdaran agents who assassinated dissident exiles. It's a hell of a lot safer. We of course, won't wack them but the Russians clearly will.
Papon was a Fascist and deserved more misery than he suffered but if the French wish to impress the world, then indict the officials who helped aid the Rwandan Hutu genocidaires.
mark safranski
February 18, 2007
4:25 pm
Yes. An American Confederate, Major Henry Wirz was probably the first to be convicted of war crimes, specifically " wanton cruelty" toward prisoners of war, and was hanged.
The U.S. Army tried and convicted thousands of American soldiers for murder, rape and other crimes during WWII. A handful faced execution by the firing squad.
Lt. William Calley was charged with six counts of premeditated murder in the My Lai massacre and was convicted on several charges and was initially sentenced to life in prison, subsequently reduced to ten years, of which he served three before his case became the focus of a habeas corpus dispute in Federal court.
Chief Wiggum
February 18, 2007
4:26 pm
Some excerpts:
_Papon appeared not to have been motivated by anti-Semitism, but by a willingness to carry out the state's policies regardless of their consequences._
_Papon was by no means unique in thinking that his duty was to remain in his post, for not a single prefect resigned from the civil service. In fact, the only prefects who left the civil service were those whom the Vichy government removed from their posts. Papon told me that he felt it was his duty to continue serving France during the crisis of wartime._
_At his trial, the jury found Papon guilty of the illegal arrest of 37 people and the arbitrary internment of 53 others, but acquitted him of acting with the knowledge of the Final Solution. To many the distinction was academic, but to Papon was essential. It enabled him to argue that he did not know the ultimate fate of the Jews._
_...Papon began his work with the resistance from November 1943 until the liberation of Bordeaux in August 1944...Thus on 23 August 1944, when Bordeaux was liberated and resistance leader Charles de Gaulle stepped out on a balcony to greet the enthusiastic population, Papon was with him._
_Papon believed a civil servant could not do wrong if he was acting in the service of the state. I asked him what he thought of the revelations in 2001 of General Paul Aussaresses, who admitted to torture and summary executions in the Algerian War. Papon said: "He would have done better to keep silent. There were perhaps some wrongdoings, but he was also at the service of France. He only had to keep quiet."_
I agree with Curzon.
There is a lot of evidence that most people under occupation just keep their heads down, do what their told and hope for better days.
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
February 18, 2007
6:56 pm
Joe
February 18, 2007
8:18 pm
By the way, the law of war crimes is basically uniform throughout the world (this is why it's called "international law"), and every country has "universal jurisdiction" to try people for any war crime that has been committed in any other country, which is why you hear of Germany pressing charges against Rumsfeld for actions in Iraq.
tequila
February 19, 2007
2:31 am
RYO
February 19, 2007
4:25 pm