Talk:Maurice Papon

Distinction between war crimes & crimes against humanity

I don't agry with war criminal crime against humanity is not crim of war. The holocaust has never been considered as a crime of war.

See What is a war crime?. The very concept of war crimes came from the Holocaust. "Genocide, crimes against humanity, mistreatment of civilians or combatants during war can all fall under the category of war crimes."

Maurice Papon is not a war criminal he sended people to dead from his office when France was officially in peace with the germany. Crime against humanity can be a war crime or not. According to the french legislation he was found guilty for crime against humanity no crime of war (both crime exist in french legislation).

Right. And this is of special importance, since crimes against humanity carry no prescription (statute of limitation), while war crimes do. David.Monniaux 16:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

France was absolutely not at peace with Germany between 1940 and 1944. There was an armistice, but an official state of war persisted, which is why France was occupied (partially, then wholly). john k 16:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The detention camp of Drancy was outside Paris, not Bordeaux. Nicholasnuttall 16:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed mate! But, next time, just be bold!. Tazmaniacs 04:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sud Aviation, Aérospatiale and some very strange nominations

Isn't that interesting? So, when Maurice Papon was forced to resign after the kidnapping of Mehdi Ben Barka, for which we are still waiting for the French and the US to open up their archives, Émile Dewoitine, another Collaborationist who fled to Juan Peron's Argentina after the war, was named in 1971 director of Aérospatiale, into which Sud Aviation had merged. These companies were the one to create the Concorde. What a nice coincidence, isn't it? Tazmaniacs 04:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Another view of Papon

See this BBC article. Haiduc 15:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The BBC should be ashamed of publishing such an article which doesn't respect basic NPOV of interviewing the lawyers of the families of the victims, and endorses Papon's thesis and point of view without any criticism nor simple distance. Adolf Eichmann also did "nothing else" than obeying orders. In July 1944, Papon began to tentatively contact with the Resistance? Such a heroic feat, indeed! Indeed, he is not the only one to have "obeyed orders": so did almost the entire French police — see Maurice Rajsfus's work, who is one of the rare to have had access to some of the police archives, although they remained classified for the majority — and so did most of the upper French class, see the case concerning the SNCF whose directors openly collaborated with the Holocaust - none resigned, and only the cheminots (train workers) engaged in sabotage, etc.). But he is also not the only one to claim to have participated in the Resistance because of last-time "actions" (what action did he do? did he go to the maquis?). All these issues were adressed during his trial, and this didn't stop him from being condemned. Judges didn't find that Papon was a Resistant, how strange indeed that they did not take Papon's statements at face value... True, lots of others collaborationists escaped judgement (René Bousquet, Jean Leguay, etc., etc. - see also Emile Dewoitine who managed to become director of Aérospatiale). But Papon was not "persecuted": he only did three years of prison, that is not much for participating in the Holocaust. For your info, Papon also claimed he took care of the "conditions of travel" of Jewish detainees going to Drancy. Judges found out that this "humanistic" will to "humanize" the "conditions of transport" to Auschwitz were mainly motivated by the will to avoid attracting attention from the local population. Eichmann also said that he took care of the Jewish living conditions, and he only wanted their own good, maybe by sending them to Madagascar of something. Tazmaniacs

The following dissertation by the same author is much more reliable than her BBC article: Maurice Papon, Vichy and Algeria, dissertation by Stephanie Hare-Cuming, London School of Economics Template:En icon Tazmaniacs

Decorations subsection

Is this subsection really needed? The decorations are a controversial issue, were obtained much later after the Liberation, and I personally think that it is superfluous, not to say misleading, to have this section without explaining circumstances of attribution & criticisms. I see two solutions: delete (and let the reader read the article), extend (and explain how he got them, controversy and all). I don't like the second solution, as it tend to focus too much on what is, after all, only decorations (how many people have got the Legion of Honour? Thousands, aren't they? Beside, ain't you supposed to demand it? So people who could have it don't, because they never asked for it...) and because it would make redundance with what is already in the chronological development about his life. Any comments? Tazmaniacs 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Decorations

• Commander of the Legion of Honour (stripped)
• "Carte d'Ancien Combattant de la Résistance" (card for Résistance membership during World War II)

Commandeur de la Légion d'Honneur is significant : it is the third rank in the Légion d'Honneur. You do not request a promotion, you are recommended by someone else. There is a quota of 1250 Commandeurs, and even though the quota is not followed very precisely, Commandeur is by not mean a chocolate award. Rama 21:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

release

How could they release him?