The Collaborator: The Trial and Execution of Robert Brasillach

This is an important yet uncomfortable book.

It poses some thought-provoking questions. What exactly is the progressive response to free speech in the collaborative context of Occupation?

Should Celine have been shot? These inquiries may seem whimsical, but they are in fact substitutes for a more concerted and comprehensive response.

I firmly believe that the procedural response to the Brasillach affair merits careful attention.

By examining the procedures and processes involved in dealing with such complex issues, we can gain valuable insights into how to handle similar situations in the future.

This book challenges us to think deeply about the delicate balance between free speech and the consequences of certain actions during times of occupation and collaboration.

It forces us to confront uncomfortable truths and consider different perspectives.

Overall, it is a book that demands our attention and engagement.

Despite some remarkable failures during World War I and the McCarthy era, the Supreme Court has frequently gone to extraordinary lengths to safeguard free speech. This includes the speech of neo-Nazis, the KKK, and flag-burners. However, I wonder what the Justices of that time would have made of the anti-Semitic ravings of the French writer Robert Brasillach. He was convicted of treason and executed after World War II. In essence, the French Court determined that Brasillach's writings had the same pernicious effect as the actions of Adolf Eichmann. Kaplan does an excellent job of narrating both the human and legal aspects of this story. She provides detailed portraits of Brasillach, the Judges, lawyers, and jurors involved in the case. In doing so, she shows that the legal and moral issues were not as straightforward as one might assume. The significant achievement of this well-written book, which at times reads like a legal thriller, is that regardless of your stance on free speech and justice, Kaplan makes you question your most profound convictions and principles. I have long regarded myself as a free-speech absolutist, but Kaplan had me changing my mind back and forth so often that I was unsure of what to think by the end.

This book challenges our assumptions and forces us to grapple with the complex and often uncomfortable issues surrounding free speech and justice. It is a thought-provoking read that will leave a lasting impression on anyone interested in these topics.

There are numerous reasons to peruse Alice Kaplan's book. However, I shall present only one. I firmly believe this to be a sufficient reason to engage with the book in the present day. Indeed, nothing could hold greater significance.

"This trial (the author is referring to the trial of Robert Brasillach for collaboration) persists as one of the most vivid rhetorical depictions we possess of France reconciling with the German Occupation. It is also one of the initial extensive public dialogues regarding what transpired in France between 1940 and 1944."

Kaplan's exploration of this trial offers a unique perspective into a crucial period of French history. By delving into the details of the trial and the events surrounding it, readers can gain a deeper understanding of the complex issues and emotions that emerged during this time.

Furthermore, the book serves as a reminder of the importance of confronting the past and learning from history. It encourages us to reflect on our own actions and decisions, and to consider how we can ensure that similar atrocities do not occur in the future.

In conclusion, reading Alice Kaplan's book is not only an opportunity to gain knowledge and insight, but also a chance to engage in a meaningful dialogue about the past and its relevance to the present.

**Original Article**:
The Importance of Recycling
Recycling is very important. It helps to protect the environment. We can recycle many things, such as paper, plastic, and metal. By recycling, we can reduce waste and save natural resources. It also creates jobs in the recycling industry. We should all do our part to recycle.

**Expanded Article**:

The Importance of Recycling

Recycling holds great significance in our lives.

It is a crucial practice that plays a vital role in safeguarding the environment. We have the ability to recycle a wide variety of items, including paper, plastic, and metal.

By engaging in recycling activities, we can effectively reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills. This, in turn, helps to conserve natural resources as recycling allows us to reuse materials instead of extracting new ones.

Moreover, the recycling industry provides employment opportunities, contributing to the growth of the economy.

It is essential that each and every one of us takes responsibility and does our part to recycle. By making small changes in our daily lives, such as separating recyclables and properly disposing of waste, we can make a significant impact on the environment and create a more sustainable future for generations to come.

Let us all join hands and embrace the importance of recycling.

This was a required book for my 1945 in Europe history class.

The book was extremely well written, with an incredible level of detail. It's no wonder it was nominated for various book awards.

I'm not really a big fan of non-fiction history books, so at times I found it rather boring. However, that's likely just a personal issue.

If it hadn't been for this class, I would have never known this book even existed. But in a way, I'm glad that I read it because I did manage to learn a great deal.

The book provided valuable insights into the events and circumstances of 1945 in Europe, which I might not have otherwise been exposed to.

Although it wasn't the most exciting read for me, I can appreciate the importance and quality of the book.

It served its purpose in educating me about a significant period in history, and for that, I'm grateful.

Overall, while it may not have been a book that I would have chosen to read on my own, it was still a worthwhile experience.

This book delves into questions that ought to intrigue me more than they currently do. What is the value of words? How does the answer to the previous question transform during times of war? What constitutes treason, or any kind of crime, when it mainly consists of words?

American scholar of French history, Alice Kaplan, endeavors to answer these questions by examining the case of Robert Brasillach. Brasillach was a fascist intellectual. In some respects, he is the type of far-right intellectual that one doesn't encounter much anymore: a true homme de lettres, critic, novelist, and poet, read by his intellectual opponents due to his ability to shape the discourse from his position at the right-wing paper Je Suis Partout. In other ways, he is a familiar figure: an edgelord and a shitposter, alternately hiding behind irony and sentimentality, the former mostly in his political/critical writings and the latter in his novels and poems.

He began as a student with Action Francaise, the French royalist proto-fascist group, which had a significant intellectual wing alongside its street fighters. Kaplan portrays Brasillach as being carried away by the romance of fascism as the ideology gained strength. Always anti-democratic, Brasillach was enamored of the newness, youth, optimism, and virility of fascism, the rallies, parades, in-group camaraderie, and so on. He was also a committed anti-semite, placing Jews at the top of a list of enemies that included leftists and parliamentarians, who were supposedly degrading France. In his writings, he compared Jews to monkeys and rats, and when the time came, he was entirely in favor of their deportation from France, most of them to their deaths in the concentration camps.

What exactly he did during the war became a point of contention in the trial. He was drafted into the French army and taken prisoner by the Germans, where, already pro-Nazi, he began his formal career as a collaborator. He continued writing during the Occupation, publishing pro-Nazi pieces, encouraging the puppet Vichy regime to crack down harder on dissidents, and enjoying himself with his Nazi and collaborator friends during a time of scarcity for most French people.

To me, what makes a lot of the back-and-forth inspired by the Brasillach case that Kaplan attempts to sort out moot is Brasillach's participation in another favorite pastime of the contemporary far right: doxxing. In the pages of Je Suis Partout, Brasillach exposed resistance members, communists, and Jews in hiding. Kaplan is careful to note that we don't know if any of Brasillach's doxes actually led to any arrests... but it wasn't for lack of trying on Brasillach's part. A doxxing then meant a lot more than mean phone calls and stalking by basement-dwelling chuds; it could mean torture and execution. As far as I'm concerned, even if one doesn't think being a fascist is a punishable offense by itself, doxxing constitutes direct collaboration with the fascist occupying authority with the intent to kill.

The Resistance arrested him around the time Paris was liberated by the allies. Brasillach's entire imprisonment and trial took place under the shadow of the ongoing war and France's fledgling reconstruction of its own nationhood. The charge against him was treason - giving aid and comfort to the enemy and degrading the nation. Notably, his propagandizing for French participation in the Holocaust was not emphasized in the case, as it occurred before the Nuremberg Trials came up with the idea of crimes against humanity - otherwise, they could have gotten him like they got Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher.

Kaplan goes into great detail about those involved in the case, not just Brasillach. She discusses the two attorneys, for the prosecution and the defense, at length. Both signed the Vichy pledge of loyalty to Marshal Petain; family legend has it that the prosecutor helped the Resistance, but we have no real way of knowing. Virtually all of France's lawyers signed the pledge - they were part of the state apparatus, after all, and Vichy was the state until DeGaulle had consolidated sufficient control over the Resistance (and the German grip slipped some). The jurors were drawn from lists of Resistance-friendly Parisians, and Kaplan profiles them too, telling about their lives mostly in the working-class suburbs of Paris, their small but noble acts of resistance, etc.

Brasillach's lawyer tried to get him out of it by citing his career, from the high-end Ecole Normale to his collections of poetry and translations - not, Kaplan points out, the sort of thing that would appeal to this jury. Moreover, Brasillach himself came to compare himself to the Resistance, in poems and statements - both were just carried away by difficult times and ideology, or something like that (something tells me we may see contemporary fascists try that one before it's all over). Nobody bought it. The prosecution layered on - and thereby made the whole thing "problematic" - insinuations of Brasillach as being gay or womanly, as being in love with the Nazis, a way to further inflame and disgust the jury. I agree that's messed up, though Kaplan herself seems to agree there was a distinct erotic edge to Brasillach's feelings for fascism. Either way, the jury voted to convict and execute Brasillach.

He appealed to de Gaulle to save his life, and so did a number of prominent French writers (including Camus but not including Sartre or de Beauvoir, for those keeping score at home). French intellectuals had become alienated from the purge of collaborationist elements and the complicities and complexities it continuously revealed. De Gaulle refused - some say due to being confused by a picture of Brasillach with French fascist leader Jacques Doriot, where Doriot was in German uniform and de Gaulle thought Doriot in uniform was Brasillach in uniform. Either way, Brasillach was shot, and became a martyr to the French far right to this day.

Kaplan concludes by saying that Brasillach should have been found guilty of treason, but not have been executed. I tend to disagree and think that his doxxing during wartime earned him a bullet. I see Kaplan's point about making martyrs, but a living Brasillach could be an inspiration to the French far right, too. Speaking extra-judicially, I think Brasillach got what was coming to him, and think he should serve as an example to other fascist propagandists. ****

An excellent, thorough, and thoughtful review of the complex case of Brassillach's acts and fate is presented. The book delves deep into this intricate matter, exploring various aspects. History is a significant element, as it provides the context within which Brassillach's actions took place. The right to speech is also a crucial topic, as it intersects with the case. Politics plays a role as well, influencing the events and the perception of Brassillach's deeds. Additionally, philosophical questions abound throughout the well-written book. It makes the reader reflect on the nature of morality, justice, and the consequences of one's actions. Overall, this book offers a comprehensive and engaging examination of a complex and fascinating case.

This analysis of Brasillach is incredibly interesting.

It delves deep into the essence of what it means to put the very ideology of Nazism on trial. It explores the political and historical context of the French government as it was rebuilding itself after the war.

Moreover, it examines how the very ego of the defendant and his attorney significantly impeded the very argument that could have potentially got him acquitted.

The details presented in this analysis are so engaging that I found myself reading it in just 2 sittings.

It provides a comprehensive understanding of the complex issues surrounding Brasillach's case and offers valuable insights into the intersection of ideology, politics, and law during that crucial period in history.

Overall, this analysis is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the nuances of this particular trial and its broader implications.