Villages Divided — Life Along the Line of Demarcation in WWII, Vichy France 

In 1940 German troops erected a line of demarcation through the already divided country of France. The line was set up to the west side of villages in occupied territory, such as Montapon, Echourgnac, and La Jemaye. To cross the line at any given time, a person had to have what was called a pasisser-passer. It was very difficult to obtain. Those caught trying to cross the line who did not possess the correct documentation were arrested and imprisoned. The sentence for such an offense was fifteen days, for men. It was slightly lighter for women who were only imprisoned for ten days.

The line of demarcation represents only a fragment of what life was like for those residing in “unoccupied” Vichy France.  Restrictions over travel had a crippling effect. Business could not be conducted as usual; the most innocent act could be misconstrued. This could land a person before a death squad or in prison — which usually resulted in being put on a train to any number of concentration camps, beginning with those in Paris. As the war waged on, conditions in Vichy France deteriorated. 

Ironically, occupied France was in a much better shape, in spite of all the devastation, than the unoccupied territory.[1]  No matter how benign it may seem, this line of division is powerful; it shaped France’s future. To present day, some villagers living along the divide acknowledge this in a variety of ways; occupants residing in villages once situated in occupied France are less willing to discuss the past than those in unoccupied territory. Or when finding someone willing to share their story, the details and sentiment contrast sharply with those one hears told about life on the Vichy side. In an occupied village a story was told about a Nazi soldier who entered a man’s home demanding a raincoat. A few days later, the soldier returned the coat clean and neatly folded. “The German’s were so efficient! They believed in order.”[2] Some of the reasons for contrasting sentiment may hinge on the way the onset of the war played out. 

On the 3rd of September 1939, just five months after the end of the Spanish Civil War, together with Britain, Australia and New Zealand, France declared war on Germany. Only six weeks later that France capitulated to the German invasion. French humiliation cannot be overstated. This was a stunning defeat – particularly since before the war the French army was considered the most powerful in Europe.[3] The scale of the crisis caused by capitulation was massive. National identity proudly rested on the republics long-held motto, liberté, égalité, fraternité  (liberty, equality, fraternity) was at steak. The French army was not given a chance to prove itself in victory or defeat, at the same time French citizens were cast a new role. Over night, under German rule, a new French identity was born that revered travail, famille, patrie (work, family, fatherland).

Further destruction of French identity happened just as swiftly. A Nazi invasion resulted immediately in a divided France. In a matter of days the nation was fragment in ways that left and lasting wounds. The line of demarcation still remains in people’s minds as a permanent marker that separate those who suffered more from those who suffered less. Those who complied with the enemy demands from those who resisted them. The story about the raincoat erases traces victimization. And, demonstrates each French citizen touched by the war possessed at least one freedom, one could interpret what was happening in their world. For the man with the raincoat, escape from an organized regime such as the Nazi’s must have seemed impossible. Where he lived, occupied territory was under the direct rule of German forces where most French citizens are known for having remained rather subdued, an altogether different scenario was unfolding and attitudes were anything but subdued.

It is in unoccupied France, more fractures in identity were created when those in power were replaced with the Vichy  regime made up of French citizens whose allegiance was clearly aligned with German rule.  The new Vichy government did not have to run for election. As a result, it was devoid of a political platform from where its ideologies were defined. Without a basic political theory, some observers have denied that the Vichy regime had any theoretical basis at all and have claimed that it was no more than a creature of accidental circumstances.[4] Some say the Vichy was in part the product of social and economic conditions that existed in France as a result of the First World War, during which France split more blood than any other nation.[5] This is the same France where one could observe, in the last years, before 1939, the growth of many youth groups, young Radicals, young Socialists, young Catholics, young rightists and so on.[6] Fueling some of these groups was a rising tide of immigration from Italy and in particular Spain, as a result of the end of the Spanish War.

In any case, the new government regime acted in accord with German desires and was not a free agent, but a sharply circumscribed instrument created by the German overlords in Paris whose desire was to push from one collaboration measure to another.[7] The German aspiration for collaboration was somewhat cultivated by and made easier by France’s recent past.

The social and economic conditions of prewar France show a demographic nightmare rife with imbalances. For instance, twenty five percent of the entire population consisted of the age group of fifty to eighty.[8] Like the politicians in Paris who did not find themselves able to fulfill the desired changes wanted within such a polarized country, French youth was searching for something meaningful to define their lost generation. If the Vichy government was not appealing, the alternative option for those living in unoccupied was to join la Resistance, or what is commonly referred to as la maquis, meaning, “wild.” The name drew its inspiration from, “La Double,” the forest that still encapsulates the department, La Dordogne, with its prefecture in nearby, Périgueux.

La Double was a largely untamed forest. It had few roads making access by vehicle was really difficult. Walking in was difficult, too, because the undergrowth was thick. Add weapons to a sojourn, ammunition, radios, what-have-you — you still do not know exactly where you are going because you do not know where la maquis are hiding. La Double provided a safe home to the Resistance. The forest, like those serving in it, was wild. [9]

By August 25, 1940, three hundred thousand displaced people in France returned to their homes. Nearly thirty thousand remained in La Dordogne, which was considered safe, although it was not without its problems.[10] October 8, 1942, the deportation of Jews to Auschwitz begins in La Dordogne from the villages nearest the line of demarcation. La maquis did not become a factor directly dealt with by the German troops until 1942. However, this is not to say there did not exist occasions when the German’s would enter villages in unoccupied France. They did. They would come there and demand to see a list of the Jews who were living in the village. They would kill the person who gave them the list then capture all the women and children and deport them. If there were no Jews found, they would terrorize the village.[11]

In the meantime the Vichy did what it could to ascertain which individuals living in villages, such as Riberac, were doing to assist the Resistance. For this, the Vichy relied on collaboration from local business people whose work put them in contact with several members of the public. In Riberac, it was the chemist. A local woman, who was 87 when she told me her stories, recalled what she remembered of suspected collaborators in Riberac.

 

I met Madame Bessine after renting an atelier space located just upstairs from her home. From time to time we greeted one another as I stood looking out from the second story window over the courtyard of the church she passed though when on her way out to tend her garden. She is devoted to her daily routine and to greeting all who pass by with a smile. She was seventeen years old when the line of demarcation divided La Dordogne from other departments. Her father and husband were both members of la maquis.

She lived in Riberac, where she and her mother grew vegetables to sell at the local market, “I am not going to say it was the chemist, but I think it was. No! I know it was him! Everyone knew it was him. It was obvious. He was given gifts. He was suddenly wealthy. And, at the end of the war, he suddenly disappeared.” [12]

Christopher, along with six others, was taken to the city of Perigord by train where they were held in prison for three days before they were transported five more times to various other places. “Each time it was the same. They would keep us somewhere then move us again. I did not know where I was held. I remember the conditions were filthy. There were fleas. It was terrible. I had flea bites everywhere and the beds were very, very dirty. Eventually, it came time. They were going to execute us, and they would have except that there was a French woman who was married to a German soldier who liked us. She pleaded to her husband to help us and he did. They set us free. All this because my name was similar to the name of the governor in Madagascar. ”[15] Of course, this would not be the only time the residents of Riberac would find their town at the center of retaliation for La Resistance and its actions. Nevertheless (ironically), the actions of La Resistance probably mattered less than what was happening on the bigger stage where the World War was raging.

 After nearly three years of utilizing France’s resources, Germany was in need of industrial workers. Its troops were tired and units growing thin. The more countries the Nazis invaded the more soldiers Germany required to support its over-extended reach. Along with this were battles raging with British forces — and of course a handful of resistance fighters in La Dordogne. Germany knew by this time it was facing a far bigger problem. In what is perceived to be a gesture of retaliation, following the first American air attack, German troops launch a campaign of terror just within the line of demarcation.

 On November 9, 1942 several thousand German troops marched into Riberac putting up barricades to block the roads. Some of the soldiers went to the La Double where they set fire to people’s homes and to the forest. They were after la maquis. Twenty people were gunned down in Riberac and from La Double, 250 more are arrested – 43 of which were sentenced to obligatory service, the rest were deported. In a village only three kilometers outside of Riberac, in St-Martin-de-Riberac, all those who were arrested were taken to a field and made to walk all day, barefoot, in a circle, one meter by one meter. If they stopped, the German’s killed them.[16]

On this same day, the chemist telephoned the Germans and gave them the name of a local mechanic, who had supplied petrol to la maquis.[17] Later, the mechanic was arrested and taken to St-Marin-de-Riberac, where he was, along with several other people -including three more mechanics- held captive in a local church. It is said the mayor of St-Martin-de-Riberac made a deal with the German troops, whose plan was to burn the entire church along with the village residents inside it, that the Nazi’s spare the villagers, taking only the lives of the mechanics.[18] One can only be certain that there were several people being held in the church. Whether or not all the residents of St-Martin-de-Riberac were there and the German’s intent was to burn the church is unclear. However, it is not improbable. Such atrocities did happen in nearby villages, such as, Rouffignac. However, in this case, what is known for certain is that the mechanics were killed and that the gunshots were heard echoing in Riberac.

Madam Bessine recalled the day the German troops arrived in the wee hours of the morning and began blockading the roads. “There was a curfew. I could hear them shooting the mechanics in St-Martin from my house. The bartender in Riberac, at the Café de Colonel was killed, too – the same day as the mechanics. They accused him of giving wine to the Maquis. Then, they arrested him. They put his body in a vat full of wine and set in on fire. They killed the butcher, too. They said he gave the Maquis some meat. Just like the bartender, he was arrested. They took him to his house and shot him then burned his house. His neighbor was the hairdresser. From that day on she could not stop crying. Every time I went to have my hair done, she would be crying.” [19]

There are alternative ideas about why the Nazis were in Riberac that day. Christopher believes “they were looking for Jews they thought were hiding in La Double. They thought there is an area where the Jews are hiding – A ghetto in the forest!” The German troops spread out that day. They went to more nearby villages where more people were killed. Usually it was young men who were standing near or walking toward La Double that were thought to be maquis. There were young locals who bragged that “they could stop the Nazi troops from crossing the nearby Dronne River. They did not know it, but they were dreaming.”[20] La Dordogne was unoccupied, but this does not reflect what it infers. Days after the German troops terrorized the residents of Riberac and the surrounding villages, they continued to do the same thing all over each of the villages aligning the line of demarcation..

Additional Photo Galleries:

Madame Bessine’s Flowers 

Riberac, France

Saint-Martin-de-Riberac 

 

Works Cited

“Atlas Historique .” Carte de la France 1940 a 1944. http://www.atlas-historique.net/1914- 1945/cartes_popups/France1940-44GF.html (accessed 08 31, 2010).

Bessine, Madame, interview by Jeanette Lamb. Riberac, France.Translated by Ellie Hesse Mana Sacho. Riberac, La Dordogne, (09 01, 2010).

Cadroas, Peirre. Resistances Chronique de l’histoire 1939-1945. Riberac: Cadroas, Peirre, 2005. Cadrosas, Pierre, interview by Jeanette Lamb. Riberac, France. (09 07, 2010).

Davidson, James. After the Fact The Art of Historical Detection. New York, New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005. Fanlac, Pierre. What to see in Dordogne Perigord. Perigord: Pres la tour de Vesone, 1980.

“France in Defeat, 1940.” Eye Witness of History. 2006. http://www.eyewitnessofhistory.com/w2frm.htm. (accessed 08 20, 2010). “France’s Land and Topography.” Discover France.

http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/DF_topography.shtml#. (accessed 08 30, 2010). Fredrich, Carl.

“Government as a Step Toward Self-Rule.” The Public Quarterly 7 (1943): 527-541. Gaston, Jeze. “The Economic and Financial Position of France in 1920.”

The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2 (1921): 175-214. Giff, Steve. Interview by Jeanette Lamb. St. Sevrein, France. (08 16, 2010). Gottschalk, Louis. “Our Viche Fumble.”

The Journal of Modern History 20 (1948): 47-56. Gurvitch, George.

“Social Structure of Pre-War France.” The American Journal of Sociology 48 (1943): 535-554. Hammer, Ellen.

“Hindsight on Vichy.” Political Science Quarterly 61 (1946): 175-188.

Hoffman, Stanley. “Collaborationism in France During World War II.”

The Journal of Modern History 40 (1968): 375-395.

Jennings, Eric. “Last Exit from Vichy France: The Martinique Route and the Ambiguities of Emigration.” The Journal of Modern History 74. , June 2002: pp. 289-324.

Kammerer, Gladys. “The Political Theory of Vichy.” The Journal of Politics 5 (1943): 407-434.

Kelly, Donald. Faces of History. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1998.

Montry, Jean. “Unoccupied France and German War Economy.” Military Affairs. Summer 1942. http://www.jstore.org/stable/1982759 (accessed 09 10, 2010).

Penaud, Guy. Andre Malraux et la Resistance. Perigueux: Editions Fanlac, 1986. —. Chroniques secretes de la Resistance dans le Sud-Ouest.

Bordeaux: Editions Sud-Ouest, 1993. —. Histoire de Perigueux. Perigueux: Editions Fanlac, 1983. —.

Les Milliards du Train de Neuvic. Perigueux: Editions Fanlac, 2001.

Queya, Christoper, interview by Jeanette Lamb. Translated by Ellie Hesse Mana Sacho.

Riberac, France. (09 17, 2010). Sacho, Martine (Mana), interview by Jeanette Lamb. Riberac, France. (09 01, 2010).

Technopole, Ester. St-Martin-de-Riberac, France. (09 19, 2010).

Vignaux, Paul. “”Resistance and Humanism.”.” Journal of Educational Sociology,, (Apr., 1945): : 454-456.

Woman, Unknown, interview by Jeanette Lamb. Reasons for Not Granting an Interview St-Martin-de-Riberac, (08 27, 2010).

[1] “France in Defeat, 1940.” Eye Witness of History. 2006. http://www.eyewitnessofhistory.com/w2frm.htm. Accessed 20 Aug. 2010.

[2] Giff, Steve. Interview by Jeanette Lamb. (08 16, 2010).

[3] ibid

[4] Kammerer, Gladys. “The Political Theory of Vichy,” The Journal of Politics 5 (1943): 407

[5] (Gaston, Jeze. “The Economic and Financial Position of France in 1920.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2 (1921): 176

[6]Gurvitch, George. “Social Structure of Pre-War France.” The American Journal of Sociology 48 (1943): 536

[7] Ibid.

[8]Gurvitch, George. “Social Structure of Pre-War France.” The American Journal of Sociology 48 (1943):535

[9] Bessine, Madame, interview by Jeanette Lamb. (09 01, 2010).

[10] Cadroas, Pierre. Resistances Chronique de l’histoire 1939-1945. (Riberac: Cadroas, Peirre, 2005): 129

[11] Queya, Christoper, interview by Jeanette Lamb. (09 17, 2010).

[12] Bessine, Madame, interview by Jeanette Lamb. (09 01, 2010).

[13] Queya, Christoper, interview by Jeanette Lamb. (09 17, 2010).

[14] ibid

[15] ibid

[16] Queya, Christoper, interview by Jeanette Lamb. (09 17, 2010).

[17] Ibid.

[18]Technopole, Ester. St-Martin-de-Riberac, France. (09 19, 2010).

[19] (Bessine 2010)

[20] Queya, Christoper, interview by Jeanette Lamb. (09 17, 2010).