An atom of meaning: the Luré§at trial (Part II)
That’s the most important piece of evidence we’ve heard yet, said the King, rubbing his hands; so now let the jury—
If any one of them can explain it, said Alice, (she had grown so large in the last few minutes that she wasn’t a bit afraid of interrupting him,) I’ll give him sixpence. I don’t believe there’s an atom of meaning in it.
The jury all wrote down on their slates, She doesn’t believe there’s an atom of meaning in it, but none of them attempted to explain the paper.
If there’s no meaning in it, said the King, that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn’t try to find any.
[Part I can be found here. More background information here.]
(So far in the trial the identity of the defendant has been established, and two witnesses for the defense who have seen the videotapes in the possession of France 2 have testified that their content clearly indicates France 2 and Enderlin both lied, establishing truth as a defense to the charges against Luré§at. The witnesses were neither cross-examined nor challenged.)
Now it was time for the attorney for the plaintiffs—a blond women of some elegance—to speak. The main thrust of her argument was twofold: it started with a short bit to state that Luré§at was indeed responsible for the content on his website, and then came a fairly lengthy hymn of praise to the great and powerful Charles Enderlin.
Most of her speech was ad hominem; it had to do with who Enderlin is, not with refuting anything that had been said in court against him. Her stance: how can they say these horrible things about a man so great? One must make a serious investigation before saying something against such a renowned journalist!
As I wrote here, in France one of the elements a defendant must prove in a successful defense against a claim of defamation of a famous person is that the defendant launched a “thorough investigation” before making the allegedly defamatory statements. So his attorney’s emphasis on Enderlin’s fame was an important part of establishing the case; Enderlin’s highfalutin status required that any accusations against him be more tightly researched than a Harvard doctoral thesis.
The attorney went on to say that proof that Enderlin and France 2 lied was weak, and it’s bad to say this against such important people without very strong proof. But it’s hard to know what would have constituted proof strong enough to have convinced this court. True, there were only two witnesses, but both gave very strong testimony that went unchallenged. And, of course, there’s the mystery (still unsolved, despite my questioning various people about it) of why the tapes themselves had not been viewed by the court.
The entire trial had been downplayed, it’s true, despite the overwhelming importance of the issues therein (and despite—or perhaps because of—the great prestige of the great Enderlin), Keeping the videotapes under tight wraps went along with that tendency. Or perhaps it’s just part of the general downplaying of courtroom evidence in the French system.
Then again, perhaps it wouldn’t have mattered even if there’d been a plan to show the tapes. You may recall from Part I that this courtroom wasn’t equipped with a functioning video player.
For me, there were certain moments that crystallized the absurdity of the case. One was when the attorney for the plaintiff discussed Richard Landes’s testimony. Landes, a medieval history professor at Boston University and author of the website Second Draft devoted to the al-Durah case, and the blog Augean Stables focusing on related issues, gave what appeared to be cogent, clear, and compelling testimony that certainly riveted the judge (and, once again, I must issue a disclaimer: I’m an acquaintance and friend of Landes’s).
What appeared to be the sum total that the attorney for the plaintiffs had to say about Landes’s testimony? “If you can understand Landes’s explanation—well, I can’t.”
Okay then, moving right along. The attorney criticized the Israeli investigation of the site that later showed that the gunfire could not have come from the Israeli position, as Enderlin had originally claimed. The experts involved were not “real experts.” Even the Israeli paper, Haaretz, had criticized them!
The latter argument was of a type that apparently featured heavily in the first trial. It goes as follows: Israeli sources are considered biased by definition, unless they are criticizing Israel in some way, in which case they are the best authorities. Of course, this indicates a failure (perhaps understandable from the French point of view, coming as it does from a country where the press is under the thumb of the state and quite monolithic) to comprehend the free-for-all of argument in the Israeli media, with Haaretz being a newspaper that is so far to the left that it’s sometimes accused of being a Palestinian mouthpiece.
As for the lack of blood in the videotapes—well, plaintiff’s attorney indicated, sometimes people get shot without there being any blood. Okay, lady, if you say so. Forget having to introduce expert witnesses on the subject, forget evidence—forget the fact that this was allegedly a stomach wound, which are known to bleed freely and copiously.
The attorney went on to throw in the fact that Luré§at’s organization had been banned in Israel as being too extreme (at which point my interpreter, a young Frenchwoman who has lived in Israel, went quietly ballistic, whispering furiously to me in English, “But that’s a lie! That’s not true at all!” But alas, she hadn’t been called as a witness.)
(This tendency of plaintiff’s attorney to slip in allegations that hadn’t come up in the trial was a puzzlement to me, and remains a puzzlement. Experts on French law, please come forward and explain; I’d love to understand.)
The procurer is a special figure in the French legal system who is supposed to represent the interest of the people. At the first France 2 trial she apparently spoke out eloquently for the importance of freedom of speech, and recommended a ruling on behalf of the defendant, although her suggestion was mysteriously ignored (well, perhaps not so mysteriously–after all, France 2 is a state-run organization). This time the procurer—a different person than before—spoke briefly on matters concerning Luré§at’s identity (he is who he is) and the definition of defamation (the words in question fit the bill). And then she reiterated what seems to be the main point here, that charges such as “disinformation” and “lies” are a big thing against a journalist especially, and we have to be very careful how we talk about these images.
Then the lawyer for the defense spoke. His first argument was that Luré§at didn’t actually write the supposedly defamatory words on the website. His second argument actually mentioned liberty, however (remember that sign on the facade of the courthouse? Liberte? Ah, yes, liberty!) He mentioned that the right to criticize and to demonstrate (the words on the website had called for a demonstration against France 2) is a very important liberty. In a democracy, you have a right to criticize a journalist.
At this point the body language of all three judges seemed to tell the tale. They all looked down, and they held their arms in a tight and closed position. The procurer was leaning back a bit in her seat with her eyes closed; she appeared to be snoozing, although maybe she was just deep in thought.
Luré§at’s attorney went on to say that the video had none of the scenes Enderlin had said it contained, and on that point it was clear that he had lied. (But of course, since the court had never looked at the videotape, this became a case of “he said she said,” another unprovable assertion against the great man).
It may be true that every country gets the system of justice it deserves. Legal systems are not arbitrary; they reflect the values of the cultures from which they emerge, rather than being imposed on that culture; then, in turn, they further influence that culture. The French have a legal system that, like most civil law systems (vs. our common law system), emphasize[s] social stability, while common law countries focus on the rights of an individual.” The same could certainly be said of France itself.
As for the wording of the decision, to be issued about a month hence, we can expect something rather perfunctory (I’m still awaiting a translation of the ruling in the first trial, which I should receive soon). After all:
…common law opinions are much longer and contain elaborate reasoning, whereas legal opinions in civil law countries are usually very short and formal in nature. This is in principle true in France, where judges cite only legislation, but not prior case law.
As for the verdict itself, I will go out on a limb—and I think it’s a thick, heavy, extremely sturdy limb—and predict that the ruling will go in favor of plaintiffs France 2 and Charles Enderlin. With French law’s presumption of guilt on the part of the defendant, even if the trial had been lengthy and much evidence had been amassed, it would have been an enormous undertaking to try to legally prove that the defendants were absolutely correct in their assertions that France 2 and Enderlin were lying.
Of course, in the somewhat similar David Irving trial in England, where defendent Lipstadt was sued for defamation by “historian” Irving for having called him a liar and holocaust denier, defendant Lipstadt won her case against great odds. As I previously wrote:
British libel laws are notoriously skewed in favor of the plaintiff, and Irving fully expected to win or to force Lipstadt to settle for a tidy sum. But Lipstadt’s publisher Penguin, to its everlasting credit, decided to spare no expense to defend her, and itself.
Historian Richard J. Evans was hired by Penguin as a consultant, and became the star witness for the defense, which was ultimately victorious. They mounted the risky strategy of asserting that everything Lipstadt said about Irving was in fact true, which meant that the burden of proof was on them to prove it to be so. And yet they succeeded, and a verdict was rendered that stated unequivocally that Irving was indeed everything Lipstadt had alleged, and more (or, one might say, less).
What’s the difference between the Irving-Lipstadt trial and this one? It’s the gravity with which the British court approached the case, and the built-in relative fairness of the British laws of discovery.
Of course, it didn’t hurt that Lipstadt’s defense had access to contributions of money in addition to the funds Penguin was willing to spend—fighting Holocaust denial apparently being a more popular cause than fighting modern-day blood libels—and there were famous lawyers on their side. But part of the credit for the positive outcome of the trial is due to the British court system’s emphasis on evidence and discovery—for example, Irving was forced to enter his private papers into evidence, and they became a pivotal part of the defendant’s case.
But back to Luré§at; the irony abounds. I couldn’t help but think this was truly a topsy-turvy Alice in Wonderland world. It’s a world in which the famous journalist is forgiven his errors, for making statments—such as the one about the IDF doing the killing, or saying he had videotape of the boy’s death throes when no such tape exists—that are either markedly negligent (the first) or outright lies (the second). And the consequences have not just been on the order of hurt pride and reputation (the supposed results of Luré§at’s defamation of Enderlin)—oh no!—but death and mayhem of innocent people, and the turning of public opinion even further against Israel.
No thorough investigation is demanded from Enderlin. No, it’s Luré§at who needs to launch the thorough investigation—against Enderlin, before calling him a liar.
I’ve been accused of stirring a tempest in a teapot by writing about this. After all, why all this verbiage about an insignificant trial in a place like France, where everyone knows justice is compromised and the status quo is protected by the legal system? I’ll tackle the answer in a later post.
[Part 1 here.]
So they can learn from you renmibi…please keep sharing your wisdom with everyone….awaiting more of your meditations….
Justin, if you’ve looked into you’ll know to keep away from it…
You cannot imagine the overwhelming feeling of pride and good fortune one gets from having been educated in the legal system in the United States until you have observed the workings of a legal system elsewhere.
Yes the French…right….
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1939471,00.html
Sorry to get everyone off their feeding frenzy over the French legal system and other real issues of Kerry et al, but are you going to acknowledge these breaking and I think most important stories for years you are just seeing the beginning of?
(nice I told you so moment – everyone gets one don’t worry)
The war was just and necessary, neocons and those who see them as their allies have always agreed on this.
The interim or occupation has been a disaster, with some intermittent great successes no doubt (the U.S. military’s swift prosecution of their own for abuses, the ratification of a an Iraqi Constitution, stabilization and peace in Kurdistan, capture and trial of Saddam, death of al-Zarqawi)
So … no surprises and damn sure no regrets.
What a surprise, that Vanity Fair would choose to interpret reasonable stock-taking by moderates and conservatives as an “abandonment” of Bush and the war.
Whoever posted here thinking Neo’s readers would take VF’s word for ANYTHING needs to reassess their attachment to reality.
“…the sick zionism…”
Ah, I see, it is a sickness to desire that there continue to exist a jewish nation called Israel. Is it in the Manual of Mental Disorders yet?
There is a good leftist post – “Ohh noes – I better switch the subject as fast as I can. Better yet, lets say that because this person isn’t covering they are afraid!!!” (replace with a voice over picking some random topic that the post doesn’t cover).
Vive La France! They have one of the most free presses in the world, much better than the US’s (who fears us peons may not like their lies and talk about them – they can not claim any silly thing they want and have no one say they are idiots!).
Your question has a simple answer, Neo. By looking at France’s mistakes, we can see what is in store for us. Just like looking at France’s surrender, we can predict what is in store for the rest of us.
The French is only good as a decoy anyways. They can’t hold the battleline, so don’t expect them to.
What Y. said.
sometimes people get shot without there being any blood.
And Enderlin was reporting from Gaza just last night, again, for France2.
http://jt.france2.fr/20h/ Tensions tré¨s vives dans la bande de Gaza
France rates higher on the press freedom index than the US. US ranks 53 and falling btw.
spotter – link, please?
Once again, it would appear that press freedom is in the eye of the beholder. Ask a lefty, he’ll say the American press is enslaved by big business and the Republican party. Ask a righty, and he’ll say the press is dominated by leftist radicals and the Democrats.
So – is this a valid study, or just another way to lie with statistics? And which country comes in at #1?
Again…proof, please.
And just to follow up, it would appear that you and I are completely free to agree or disagree with press accounts, and even to call the accuracy of those accounts into question loudly and publicly – whereas the French, evidently, are not. We have this thing called the First Amendment that protects not only the (rich, powerful, rumor-mongering, election-steering, career-destroying, reputation-ruining, personal-life-wrecking) press, but also ordinary people like us. I think that contrast was one of the major points of this whole series by neo.
Personally, I’ll be satisfied with #53 on the mysterious press freedom index of doom as long as I can speak and write freely without being sued by a bunch of MSM fatasses desperately trying to protect their presumed monopoly on the truth.
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639
voirdire wrote: “You cannot imagine the overwhelming feeling of pride and good fortune one gets from having been educated in the legal system in the United States until you have observed the workings of a legal system elsewhere.”
Indeed. Too bad (and ironic), then, that Senate and the White House are undermining that very legal system, by allowing for such things as secret evidence and the annulment of habeus corpus.
FINLAND IS ON TOP OF THE PRESS FREEDOM SCALE!!!!
WHAT DO WE WIN??????????
I’ll take my freedom in cash thanks!!!!
Actually, I’m looking forward to part III, wherein the tempestuous verbiage is explained.
Reporters w/o Boarders …
Well, they repel them, you see.
Sorry. A ‘circulation is down’ joke. And a bad one, I admit.
Let’s see … First, they gather their stats from a highly respected group, I see:
The questionnaire was sent to partner organisations of Reporters Without Borders (14 freedom of expression groups in five continents) and its 130 correspondents around the world, as well as to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists.
No political bias there, of course.
Then, they just lie:
The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.”
Whatever. You can publish anything, report anything, lie through your teeth about the administration, and nothing will happen to you. Except, you’ll make the NYT best sellers’ list. Michael Moore, anyone? Helen Thomas?
The rest of the comments on the US are hogwash as well. Countercolumn handily debunks them.
More interesting stuff:
Rising nationalism and the system of exclusive press clubs (kishas) threatened democratic gains in Japan, which fell 14 places to 51st.
The press clubs haven’t changed, so Japan is being punished because of ‘rising nationalism,’ which means, ‘because the evil Japanese aren’t looking miserable and penitant enough for their sins of 60+ years ago.’ And they supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq — that’s gotta knock 5 points off right there.
This next bit was interesting, too:
Fallout from the row over the “Mohammed cartoons”
Denmark (19th) dropped from joint first place because of serious threats against the authors of the Mohammed cartoons published there in autumn 2005. For the first time in recent years in a country that is very observant of civil liberties, journalists had to have police protection due to threats against them because of their work.
So Denmark gets dinged despite the willingness to stand up to violent groups and giving increased police protection to journalists. Fair enough, but then, the rankings don’t necessarily have anything to do with government policies or actions, which is something to keep in mind.
FINLAND IS ON TOP OF THE PRESS FREEDOM SCALE!!!!
WHAT DO WE WIN??????????
You win a language with TOO MANY FRICKIN CASES (declension). Yeah, I’ve looked into Finnish a little
Thank-you for covering this.In France (and some other European contries) the press is subsidized. Is it then remarkable that anything the gov’t doesn’t want covered, isn’t? Note also the airwaves are gov’t controlled,so no meaningful opposition there.Neo, you run a classy show,but why do you attract so many comments from pathetic losers?I just wonder.
So they can learn from you renmibi…please keep sharing your wisdom with everyone….awaiting more of your meditations….
Justin, if you’ve looked into you’ll know to keep away from it…
I wonder, what the outcome of the Irving trial if held in France?
Nevertheless France has nothing to gain by turning public opinion against Israel, has it?
Nor is this a strategy as you seem to imply. The only thing on trial here was Enderlin’s ego…he is French after all…
Irving? Enderlin is no Irving, Enderlin’s (at a guess) main preoccupation would be Enderlin.
As for turning the world against Israel, they do a good enough job on their own…frankly, have you been to Israel?
Nevertheless I agree that it is mischievous in the extreme for Enderline to claim that the IDF intenionally killed the man and boy.
This is one incident. Both sides can and do find justifications in anything.
I don’t think the trial proves anything one way or the other with regards to Enderlin’s assertions, but in some strange way it validates his right to have an opinion….and the fact that the penalty was so frivolous validates the rights and views of the defendant as well.
An exercise in futility perhaps.
I think Enderlin should deflate himself a little, that’s the real moral of this story.
The public isn’t that naive…then again….Dubya…
A quick clarification, Enderlin would probably be worried about the loos of his ‘good name’ as a ‘reliable journalist’. So it’s probably best seen as an attempt by Enderlin to shore up this position.
The context of the imagery in general though is that you find in a war zone, who then is to blame?
In Iraq it’s called collateral damage. What’s the difference?
Nevertheless I agree that it is mischievous in the extreme for Enderline to claim that the IDF intenionally killed the man and boy.
Ah yes, those mischievious journalists….with their mischievous little blood libels.
As for those who think it starts and ends with the Jews, I got news for you: it doesn’t end with the Jews (though that particular lesson, learned once upon a time, if reluctantly, has been forgotten quickly enough; granted, there are those who are willing to sacrifice and to suffer as long as the Jews get their comeuppance).
the cry anti-semitism seems to be the first and last bastion of those who used to be called scoundrels…
I may have misread but did Enderlin actually call it/actually insinuate ‘blood libel’? That’s beyond the pale if so.
Can we just move beyond anti-semitism? Aren’t we able to critisize Israel without being anti-semites? They could be eskimos for all I care, it doesn’t change things on the ground. Ive critisized Muslims here too but I’m not that type of anti-semite either.
Also do you know who treats Palestinians just as bad as the Islraelis? (short of killing them aside from the phalanges but they’re lebanese and christian), the Jordanians, the Syrians, their ‘friends’…
so…you know…does that make you feel better?
The war was necessary for Israel(apparently)…not so for Americans.
I’m quite sure you believe a war with Iran is necessary too – even if it means breaking the back of the U.S economy, killing more American teenagers and hundreds of thousands more Muslims, and provoking a more robust nuclear arms race and eventual world obliteration.
Good for you, asshole.
But clearly not necessary or moral as you seem to think….
in response to…
“The war was just and necessary, neocons and those who see them as their allies have always agreed on this.
The interim or occupation has been a disaster, with some intermittent great successes no doubt (the U.S. military’s swift prosecution of their own for abuses, the ratification of a an Iraqi Constitution, stabilization and peace in Kurdistan, capture and trial of Saddam, death of al-Zarqawi)
So … no surprises and damn sure no regrets.”
Well to pull a question out Sunshines vacuous little template.
“I’m quite sure you believe a war with Iran is necessary too”
It looks like the Russians and Chinese are blocking sanctions — how can we just skip that proceed to war? Please don’t be so stupid as to say, “Duh, we just went to war with Iraq with out sanctions, duh”
The war with Iraq was 100% just and necessary — if you were against it you can only hang your head in shame for your capitulation, immoral support the likes of Saddam Hussein.
If you want to continue to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, knock yourself out.
I was agin Bush 43 execution, I was for Bush 41 execution, I was agin Bush 43 illegalities which actually had a judge at Nuremburg …NUREMBURG…
say that Bush was libel for War Crimes…. It’s even in wikipedia. I was for masterful diplomacy of Bush 41. I was for Clinton bombing when necessary. Anyway trogs do not worry because even if Dems win everything (which they wont) nothing will change. Jim Baker’s plans are all variations of withdrawals anyway…so…you know….I dont see waht youre worried about really.
The only thing accomplished in Iraq doing it bassackwards is that this beautiful administration gave another head to the dying hydra…
You ppl talk as if you want war, but other ppl to fight it for you…can someone tell me what they want really instead of telling us what liberals want? Cut to the chase…Blitzkrieg thru the entire East ala Alexander? It is isn’t it?
No … what we want is for people to contribute and communicate in a civil, thoughtful, and coherent manner.
“if you were against it you can only hang your head in shame for your capitulation, immoral support the likes of Saddam Hussein.”
Is that thoughtful and coherent?
What an asshole….
And you know – there are other factors(sanctions not being one of them)that could prevent a war with Iran taking place.
But that’s not really the point I’m making.
The point is that the only ones pushing for a war with Iran right now are neoconservatives and the Israel lobby – and Israel itself.
Because they are the ones that want a wider war and Americans to pay for it in actual dollars and with American lives….
Sanctions are alway the best first resort — few disagree with that.
I didn’t know neo-conservative were represented on the Security Council.
Yes, people die when evil must be confronted — make the process easier not harder.
“Actual dollars” well dollars either are or they are not. American lives were lost to end slavery in America — was that a worthy cause or should be had left those nice southern planters alone TO LIVE IN PEACE!!! WHY CAN WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!!!!????
Generation gaps occure when dying ideology can no more win over young men’s natural scepticism and seeking for their own ways. Age range for socialization is rather short, and these formative years greatly influence the whole age cohort. If sons do not anymore trust their parents in value judgments, it means that father’s ideology is bankrupt. War always is catalyst for such change of heart; this was true in Vietnam era, this is true now, only direction of change is reversed.
Actually Isaiah alot of people disagree with sanction – their effectiveness, and the moral factor in starving hundreds of thousands of people to death as in Iraq and N.Korea.
But sanctions serve to weaken the infrastructure of a nation making it ripe for invasion and occupation.
lol.
Do your self a favor and try and read more than the usual bullshit you read from Neo and the like….
‘Evil’, is it? And what about the thousands killed in Lebanon and Gaza?
Moral?
What an asshole.
Grade A dude – take your Zionist bullshit and feed it to somebody of your own I.Q level little boy…
It’s nothing to do with the Security Council either – it’s to do with the dozens of right wing Jewish NGO’s formulating U.S foreign policy decisions with their own linear agenda(i.e The Syria Accountability Act, the Iraq war and the Iran war – whenever that comes about – but it will)…
Funny holding Syria Iran and Iraq under real militaristic threat for a handful of U.N resolutions while Israel the leader(although the U.S would be the undisuputed king of international crime if it didn’t own the U.N)of war crimes and U.N resolutions continues to have a free hand to steal, murder and lie about it.
Care to argue against that loser?
neo – this is really outstanding reporting. Kudos. Big ones.
Na, you have your opinion and I have mine — I can respect that. Nighty night 🙂
Enderlin’s highfalutin status required that any accusations against him be more tightly researched than a Harvard doctoral thesis.
Aristocracy is created to rule over humanity, Neo. Some of your visitors here, have tried to tell you this, but you resist out of all reason!
The attorney went on to say that proof that Enderlin and France 2 lied was weak, and it’s bad to say this against such important people without very strong proof.
Obvious. One cannot maintain the moral high ground with such smut and defamations going on.
For me, there were certain moments that crystallized the absurdity of the case. One was when the attorney for the plaintiff discussed Richard Landes’s testimony.()() I must issue a disclaimer: I’m an acquaintance and friend of Landes’s).
Yes, I do seem to recall a post of yours pointing to the site Second Draft. As I commented at the time, however, words are important, but if you don’t have the hard power to back it up, they are meaningless. In this case, sadly, it has been applied once again. The powerless cannot fight the powerful, without the use and obtainment of power.
(This tendency of plaintiff’s attorney to slip in allegations that hadn’t come up in the trial was a puzzlement to me, and remains a puzzlement. Experts on French law, please come forward and explain; I’d love to understand.)
I guess it sounds good and doesn’t require any real work to back up, so might as well. Smoke em if you got em, Neo.
(remember that sign on the facade of the courthouse? Liberte? Ah, yes, liberty!)
Go with this motto, Neo. If it is in French, it doesn’t matter.
What’s the difference between the Irving-Lipstadt trial and this one? After all, the British defamation law under which the Irving trial was held shares with French law the (in my opinion abominable) presumption of guilt in the defendant.
What are you talking about, don’t all Democrats prefer the European model as their way to recover the civil liberties Bush has stolen from them?
Oh wait, you are not a Democrat anymore, my bad.
Note also the airwaves are gov’t controlled,so no meaningful opposition there.Neo, you run a classy show,but why do you attract so many comments from pathetic losers?I just wonder.
renminbi | 11.05.06 – 1:17 am | #
it is cause neo is kind and compassionate like the classical liberal she is. I share some of her sentiments, but not her tolerance.
sacrifice and to suffer as long as the Jews get their comeuppance).
Barry Meislin | 11.05.06 – 4:03 am | #
French thought it would end with the Jews. That is why they shipped them over to Nazi Germany by the trainload.
Ymarsakar – Again what have you got against the French, that last statement is immoral and if you want to play, every european country did the same save the Danish and a few others…
As for Vichy France tht was a unique case in the war. Not something for glib generalizations.
Also Meislins comments were I think directed to me, and they are offensive and simple minded. He knows this, I dont need to remind him.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>