Macron's plan to pay tribute to Nazi collaborator Pétain stirs anger - Polidicks

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/07/nazi-collaborator-phillipe-petain-world-war-stirs-anger The French president has said it is “legitimate” to pay tribute to Marshal Philippe Pétain, who led the French army to victory in the first world war but decades later collaborated with Nazi Germany. Emmanuel Macron’s plan to honour Pétain alongside seven other French marshals who directed military campaigns during the first world war, which ended 100 years ago on 11 November, has unleashed criticism from Jewish groups, political opponents and on social media. “I consider it entirely legitimate that we pay homage to the marshals who led our army to victory,” Macron said in the eastern town of Charleville-Mezieres that once lay on the frontline between French and German troops. How to take things out of context 101, what he did in WW2 is irrelevant to a commemoration of the centenarry of the end of WW1.

That's an insanely bad move. Only neo nazis remember Pétain fondly. Hes pretty much considered the worst traitor of french 20th century history. The antisemitism of his administration and its active collaboration with nazis lead to way more jewish people being arrested and deported. Pétain even had the children deported to death camps when nazis didn't ask for them. I have no clue what Macron is trying to achieve beside pandering to the extreme alt right. Yes he had some major military victories but who cares, he was a monster. There's military commanders who didnt have a hand in the worst genocide in history, celebrate them instead. Macron you're a fucking moron.

Why is Macron constantly fucking up

maybe his right-wing French corporate donors likely paying him to do it. And also why French left-wingers have more reasons to hate him instead having Melenchon as country's president even him having his own flaws.

I find it odd to specifically honor WW1 marshals who didn't die in the field, rather than the French forces as a whole. Sure, their decisions were important for victory, but most of them didn't have to endure a fraction of what the rest of the French population went through.

Scientists are baffled

lmao what. Macron this is a big goof. And anyways, if any French general can be said to have won the war it would have been Foch as Generalissimo (and Haig next to him as CinC of the BEF). Which is why Macron is choosing to honor them, and I really doubt that he doesn't have anything planned for the regular Poliu as well. Yet what the Generals were doing was equally important. While mistakes were certainly made, the Generals were having to learn how to fight a new kind of Global war on the fly - an extremely difficult task when a major part of your country has been invaded. I'm not sure how many French General Officers were killed or wounded in the war though, there are numbers for the British at least (232 casualties overall, 78 of those were killed). Is leading your country to victory in the face of an aggressor not a merit though? They're obviously far from the only ones to contribute, but on the whole I feel like you're giving the Generals a bit of a short stick.

Why the fuck would you honor a single fucking general above all else? Warfare is not a solo man effort, and the first and second World Wars were far from that, too. The fact he was disgraced by the Nazis is just icing on the shit sundae that Macron is serving up here. What a clueless tit.

It's that he's honoring Petain alongside the other Marshals. He's not honor Petain alone, and I'd really assume he has something planned for the Poliu, if he doesn't he's being really dumb.

Why are they honoring high command specifically though? The whole point of the poppy here in the UK is that it's a universal symbol of remembrance above all else. No gods, no kings, no martyrs, no legends. A recognition of all involvement and all efforts toward the war, those that died, those that survived, those that thrived. Singling out just leads to this kind of controversial shite.

Because the French high command did lead the French armies to victory in 1918? Again, I'd be surprised if Macron doesn't have something lined up for the ordinary Poilu. French rememberance during the Centenial has had a focus on the ordinary soldiers as well, as exemplified by the ceremony at Verdun 2 years ago.

War memorials and commemorations have always been about mourning the massive losses incurred to me, and as a retrospection to keep in mind the errors of our past and to avoid falling into the same pitfalls in the future. Not about glory or congratulating soldiers for being proficient at vanquishing the enemy. While I'm not denying how necessary these generals' work was for France at the time, or how smart and adaptable they were, I don't see how honoring them specifically would fit the former angle, rather than the latter. (Poilu* BTW)

I guess I just view this differently, as to paraphrase Dr. Stephen Badsey, we're "inside the experiment" so to speak and we won't see how newer research has, or is, going to stick with the public at large because of the commemoration. The study of WWI has undergone some massive overhauls in the past 30 or 40 years, and yet many people still hold onto beliefs from the 1930s or 1960s, even when newer research shows that those earlier views either aren't as nuanced or are just plain wrong. So for me, at least, part of the whole centennial is seeing if we can break away from those older ideas, like those of "Lions led by Donkeys" - and in that case it does good to highlight the roles and achievements of command. As long as it doesn't become the only aspect to the commemoration I don't see an issue tbh.

Wouldn't it be just as absurd to honour Hitler for his WWI service, or his shitty paintings, while ignoring his genocide?

If what you want is to correct people's misconceptions about the role of officers during the war, memorials frankly aren't the time and place to do that. I also really doubt that it is the motive of the organizers of those general-specific memorials. There's a difference between honoring and studying. If you want the centenary to be a way for people to learn and have a more accurate view of what happened during WW1, you can do it through the descriptive expos and screenings that are scheduled on this occasion. But that's not what memorials are about. Dedicating a memorial to generals doesn't make any more sense than making a memorial specifically for Pierre, Paul or Jacques the random poilus.

It is exactly the time and place for it, as much of what many people think they know about the war comes from such events, it comes from how the culture remembers the war. For many people it is their only contact with the war. To further paraphrase Dr. Badsey, the problem isn't people who don't know anything about the war (like thinking Hitler led the Germans in WWI or something), but rather those who think they know stuff about WWI, but all they really remember are half-remembered facts from school. And people, due to how the popular cultural rememberance of the war, often don't listen to those "descriptive expos" and screenings. An example of this is a documentary on Douglas Haig in the 1990s. It was fairly balanced and had experts on both sides of the Haig Debate. Yet, much of the public reacted very negatively to this documentary, with the BBC and newspapers recieving countless letters about how wrong it was - and how right a comedy show like Blackadder Goes Fourth was. In order to help changes people's perceptions it has to be incorporated into how the culture remembers the war as a whole. It's all part "cultural memory", and you can't really divorce commemorations and memorials from that. I also feel this'll be Macron placing some flowers on the graves, and then giving some sort of speech - I could be wrong though, not really "making a memorial specifically" for them, but rather highlighting their role during the commemoration.

Your argument boils down to "people mostly pay attention to memorials, thus we should just cram whatever facts we want them to be more knowledgeable about into those". Again, this is not what memorials are about. They're places of mourning dedicated to the people who fought and died in this war, our ancestors, sometimes even relatives still within living memory of a few of us. They're not someplace to display fun facts about history or correct people on some technical details like how important generals really were, that belongs in a museum. If you want people to know more about the war, and correct their misconceptions, do it through expos, documentaries, museums, or, you know, the fucking curriculum. Think that's not sufficient? Tough shit. Doesn't make it right to hijack memorials for something that is irrelevant to their purpose. Besides, and as I've already pointed out, your reasoning is not the motive behind the organizers of this specific memorial anyway, so that's not a very relevant debate.

Really? Because last I checked a memorial was something, especially a structure, established to remind people of a person or event. How does correctly representing something in a memorial to it, not what a memorial is about then? A memorial, commemoration (and a commemoration, which is what Macron is doing, is remembrance in the form of an event. Even google lists part of its definition as "a ceremony or celebration in which a person or event is remembered"), or other event isn't strictly about mourning. If you go back to 1925 you'd more likely find British veterans partying on November 11th than somberly standing around, "attending one's own funeral" as one veteran once remarked. Remembering the role of the generals, in a commemoration event, isn't some "technical detail" or "displaying a fun fact". It's literally remembering their important role in the war. And I've already described why this isn't enough, because it revolves around cultural memory of the event, and cultural memory is impacted by more than just documentaries and museums - but also how the culture on the whole remembers an event. In order to actually shift what people think about WWI, how it gets remembered needs to shift as well. Cultural Memory has a huge impact on how people percieve past events, and not just WWI mind you. what? Who is hijacking what exactly? or did the Generals suddenly not serve in the war or something? I was pointing out that taking the time to commemorate leaders who led France to victory isn't something bad or against the purpose of memorials - and by doing so brings the commemoration on 11/11/18 closer to what historians have been saying for a while. I really doubt this is all Macron will be doing for commemoration on Sunday, and he will be highlighting everyone else as well. If he doesn't, I'd be shocked.

You're not really adding any new substance in this post. Your use of google definitions doesn't particularly help either, it's like my point just goes over your head. The world wars were events that ravaged lots of nations of the world, among which most of Europe. They ruined two generations. Dedicating memorials to how great and pivotal our generals were is missing the point. Winning was better than losing, but neither were preferable to never going to war in the first place. WW memorials shouldn't be about glory, or celebrating our victory, when we're talking about wars with nations that ultimately became our allies. You argue from the standpoint that the general public has limited attention and that the centenary is an exceptional occasion to spread a particular message about our past. So, tell me, what lesson would you say is the most important for the population to learn? That, in times of war, commanding officers - which most people will never even become in the first place - are important to secure victory? Or that we should do all we can to avoid falling down that hole again in the first place? At a time when nationalism rises all over the world, which do you think is the most essential takeaway?

Gotta love how French Nationalists drum up about loyalty to the state and it's culture above all else yet suck their own cocks over the biggest traitor in French history.

what, why don't you say "what isn't really adding substance" then. While we're at it, why don't you actually define what you mean by memorial services and commemoration services as well. Until then I'll be using widely accepted and known definitions of those words. And what point, would that be exactly? Who said Macron is dedicating memorials to them (and this is exactly why I brought up what a "commemoration" and what a "memorial" in this context is)? It's part of a much larger ceremony, and will likely at most be placing some flowers on graves and making a few remarks. So you're twisting what the likely scenario here is going to be in order to accuse me of "missing the point". You accuse me of "missing the point", but go and say this. It's a nonsense strawman you've created. Macron laying some flowers (or whatever likely and similar action he is going to take) and making some remarks about these men (that would likely be along the lines of "they weren't donkeys") as part of a larger commemoration ceremony isn't this singular action you're making it out to be. It's a part of larger commemoration and memory, and its an action that starts to shift the narrative away from old ideas while still being respectful. And looking at this article from The Atlantic, he has been doing a "a series of commemorations" that combine "messages of remembrance with warnings about the recent growth of nationalism in the world". And according to the French Government he's touring battlefields until tomorrow (the 9th), and on the 10th there will be a ceremony at the Glade of the Armistice. The 11th will bring over 120 Dignitaries to Paris for the "Paris Peace Forum". This commemoration of the leaders is put a small part of this larger commemoration, which you have been thoroughly missing this entire time. Him taking the time to give the Generals their justly deserved remembrance, alongside all of that other stuff, isn't a bad thing. And nor is the message that they "were required to secure victory", it is that unlike how popular culture usually presents them, they weren't stupid - they weren't "donkeys" as Alan Clark put it (and which is what I have been saying this whole time). maybe look to what Macron is actually saying, and what I've been actually saying, before making up hypotheticals like that.

That WW1 memorials and commemorations are about remembering the sacrifices people made. You keep conflating honoring memories and educating people about historical facts. Those generals, for all their smarts and insight, don't deserve any more praise or specific distinction than the poilus who died choking on their own blood, blown to bits by artillery, or after hours of agony, or than those who came back disfigured and missing limbs, all to defend their country. Are you going to argue that French generals made greater personal sacrifices than those men? Will those poilus be honored, personally, specifically, by their name, by the president? No? Then neither should those marshals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_memory#Memorialization What I'm talking about is cultural memory and collective memory, and in this case historiography's role in it (I linked the wikipedia pages for both so you can get a basic grasp of the concepts). Both the study of cultural memory, and how research either leaks into the greater consciousness. A large part of cultural and collective memory is how the past is commemorated and memorialized. Like you're not connecting the dots here, commemoration is just as much of a part of memory (and how people learn about something ) of an event as is documentaries and school curriculum. So no, I wholly disagree with you at this point as you continue to construct straw men. Macron making a point about the leadership not being donkeys during his many acts during the overall commemoration and memorial services is not " As this paper notes, visits to memorial sites are the most important factor how the French public interacts with and remembers WWI. How that memory is portrayed has a monumental influence on what people believe about WWI. Like, a memorial service is far more than just a memorial service. It's how a culture remembers and diffuses information about the past. What information is diffused at these sorts of events is important.

Have you heard perchance of the tomb of the unknown soldier? it's for honoring equally all the war dead, known and even unknown, who gave their lives for the nation. Don't act as though they haven't been honored at all by the motherland they gave their blood for.

Macron and many other heads of state are meeting in Paris for a ceremony at the Arc de Triomphe, where France's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is located too. So again, this is making a mountain out of what is literally nothing (or as I'd rather hold a beneficial thing).

I feel like the shit he's done in WW2 is far more important than WW1. Especially since WW1 was an absolute shitshow of a war anyway and nobody really "won" in it in the end. Celebrating marshals and other high-ranking figures of WW1 when the conflict is renowned for the absurd disconnect between command and the average soldier is also pretty dumb in its own right.

Hitler was a veteran of WW1 but I don't see Germany honoring him for it.

I am the one constructing straw men? That's rich, considering you avoid answering my questions, keep referencing a saying that's specific to the anglosphere as if it were relevant to French cultural memory, and repeatedly ignore that honoring and paying homage is about more than just inscribing something into collective memory. It's mainly about paying respect. So, again, do you believe those generals are more deserving of respect than the common foot soldier who died fighting this war? If not, then you should stop and actually think about the implications of honoring them specifically, beyond simply what people will remember of the war. And what part of : Don't you get, exactly? I'm talking to native English speakers here, am I not? According to your own logic, those generals are already being honored by commemorations dedicated to the French who fought in WW1 as a whole. And they've already been paid homage in the first place, since the honorific title of "marshal" is bestowed upon commanding officers who led their army to be victorious in battle. They were also given specific pensions as rewards. Don't you think they've been given enough privileges as it is without adding specific homages on top of it all? Let me know when Macron goes out of his way to walk to my great-great-grandfather's actual tomb and pay homage to him specifically. Until then, dedicating part of the ceremony to paying homage to WW1 marshals seems misplaced to me.

Hitler served as a dispatch runner and accomplished little of note. Petain played a major role in the Battle of Verdun, achieved the distinction of Marshal and served as Commander-in-Chief of the entire French army. I get the point being made, but the distinction between the two men and the importance of their efforts during WWI are not even remotely comparable.

wasn't stalin anti Semitic?