He will return with his immense heart, with his heart of fire, his poor man's soul
and his smile. He will return! And the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph!

150^th ANNIVERSARY OF PHILIPPE PÉTAIN

MARSHAL OF FRANCE

LEGITIMATE HEAD OF STATE

« The defendant will rise! »

The insulting order does not appear in the stenographic record of the debates; nevertheless it was uttered on 23 July 1945 by the president Mongibeaux addressing the Marshal of France Philippe Pétain, appearing before the so-called high court of justice. As he entered, the entire room spontaneously stood, subjugated. He whose « goodness, nobility and glory dominated this century of thieves, liars, killers and parasites » (Georges de Nantes), knew what awaited him. Before the opening of the sittings he confided to Canon Potevin:

« Now that my sacrifice has been made, they can say or do whatever they like. What do I care? »

« What is your family name, first name, age and occupation? »

– Pétain, Philippe, Marshal of France. »

He did not give his age: eighty-nine. Yet in five words, all was said.

FROM A RACE OF FARMERS AND PRIESTS

He was born on 24 April 1856 in Cauchy-à-la-Tour in Artois, into a rural, poor and hard-working family. Among the Pétains or the Legrands, the family of his mother, one was either a farmer, a priest or a soldier, and the young Philippe owed the best of himself to his paternal grandmother, who united solid piety to fundamentally legitimist convictions, as well as to one of his uncles, Jean-Baptiste Legrand, the parish priest of Bonny and later of Mazinghem.

It was soon after 1870 that the military vocation was awakened in him: the great distress of the people of France, the idea of Revanchism that occupied minds, and seeing one day a chasseur officer who cut a fine figure, persuaded him to embark on a career of arms. He committed himself, as in a vocation, with absolute generosity.

His first postings revealed a model officer, conscientious, very close to his men, with an unfailing endurance and an absolute loyalty to his superiors. In 1888, in Besançon, Lieutenant Pétain met a young woman, Marie-Louise Regad, remarkable in every way. To marry her, however, he would have to abandon his military career and enter into the family business. On the advice of his uncle, he abandoned the idea of this magnificent love in order to remain in the service of France. Three months later, he passed his entrance examination for the War College, and his uncle who was a priest then began saying that Philippe would be a Marshal of France. One day in 1943, the Marshal himself admitted:

« It is easy for me to know my path; I determined it on the day when I made to the country the gift of my person. I was a young officer and it was an interior oath: such a commitment never constrains you; it liberates you. »

IF ONLY HE HAD BEEN HEARD!

Pétain graduated from the War College with the rank of captain. In each of his appointments, at each rank, he revealed an almost innate perfection that set him « apart », reserved for a high mission that was not yet revealed to him. His superiors remarked his « firmness of character and ideas that prevented him from becoming a slave to any milieu ».

He made no mystery of certain personal ideas, matured at length during his different commands, on firing technique as well as on the general conduct of war.

He was nevertheless appointed professor of the chair of infantry tactics at the National War College and developed there his teaching on fire power, – « Fire kills » – as well as on the need for coordination among the different branches of the army. His manner of teaching impressed his students: he arrived, impassive, arranged his notes, and spoke without looking at them, in a way that was « so accurate » that he conquered all those who did not have any contrary feeling or prejudice. If the truths that he put forward had been accepted by the French army, we would not have experienced the bloody and criminal hecatombs of the beginning of the war.

In 1911, he was named to the head of the 33^rd Infantry Regiment, which regained in a few months, thanks to him, spirit and discipline. Under his orders, military matters were thought out and well executed… and the soup was always served hot and on time! One day, during a manoeuvre, he did not hesitate to contradict a general who wanted to demonstrate the value of massive attacks: « If the major general has given me given me the floor, it is, I think, so that I tell you that he wanted to give you a demonstration of all the faults that we should avoid hereafter. » It is understandable that with such plain speaking, he was only a colonel in 1914. Yet events would prove him to be absolutely right.

THE REVELATION OF A GREAT LEADER

General Pétain positively saved the French army, and thus France, at least twice, at two crucial moments of this Great War. What was his secret? From the first engagement in Dinant in Belgium, to his final preparation of a decisive offensive in Lorraine, his mind was never distracted for a moment from the problem of the battle. His perfect mastery of military knowledge, joined to a true compassion and concern for the soldier, allowed him to climb rapidly all the rungs of command. His worth, long kept hidden, compelled recognition from all, leaders and subordinates.

In October 1914, he commanded the 33^rd Army Corps. It was at its head in Vimy on 9 May 1915 that he won the only success of the French army during this most bloody first year of the war. One spoke of the “Pétain method”: a meticulous preparation of the attacks in order to economise as much as possible on human lives, and the essential role of artillery in this trench to trench confrontation that had become veritable siege warfare. « Artillery conquers, the infantry occupies », he unceasingly repeated.

In February 1916, the great, the terrible Battle of Verdun broke out. Pétain was called in urgently. « Hello? This is Pétain. I am taking command. Tell this to your troops. Hold steady. I have confidence in you. »

– We will hold out, Sir. You can count on us as we are counting on you. » In this short exchange is contained the whole secret of the heroic victory of Verdun. On 9 April, speaking heart to heart with his decimated poilus, farmers determined to defend their land, Pétain, uttered his famous « Cheer up, we’ll get them! »

This victory alone would have sufficed for his glory. Six months later, however, after the insane offensive of Nivelle at Chemin des Dames and the unprecedented crisis of morale that affected the whole army, he alone was able to rectify the situation. « I reconquered the confidence of the army and kept it, he said, because the army and I, we live on the same principles. »

The salutary recovery that took place from May to July 1917 was, by all accounts, a true resurrection, a wise, orderly, humane, and intelligent retaking of control, too miraculous to be the result of human efforts alone. In the meantime the singular vocation of the future marshal was taking shape. He confided to Henry Bordeaux: « I am only called upon in catastrophes […]. I will remain to the end. Besides, they will not want to let me profit from the victory. When they sense it coming, they will discharge me. »

This is exactly what happened in 1918, the decisive year, when Pétain, applying himself more than ever to his job, commanded 3500 Renault tanks, 4000 planes and a mass of heavy artillery. He was the architect of the victory, a better strategist than Foch and the others! who contained the last German offensives in the spring and launched the victorious counter-offensive in July. Foch, however, by dint of intrigues, worked his way up to the head of the allied armies, and Clemenceau, eager to hold on to power, refused him, and through him, the French army, the honour of giving the deathblow. The armistice was signed prematurely – a fault with incalculable consequences. Twenty years later, war once again ravaged the land.

FROM ONE WAR TO THE NEXT

Nevertheless, the Marshal, « who succeeded in everything and who was always right », made every effort during the months, the years that followed the Great War, to conserve the advantages of our victory. This leader, who was depicted as a defensive general, asked for tanks and planes, offensive weapons if ever there were! in order to modernise the army and save the peace so dearly obtained. Nonetheless, the cries of alarm from the conqueror of the Rif (1924) found little echo in a country that was taken in by the lure of pacifism, and not much more with the parliamentary and demagogic power. In his doctrine of the implementation of these modern arms, he once again proved himself to be a true prophet. What he had wished for the French army, the German army did, and we suffered the consequences six years later.

Something, however, overshadowed this very pure glory. An admirable servant of France, was not Pétain a discreetly scandalous man, married in 1920 to a divorcee? Louis-Dominique Girard has shed light on this in book “Mazinghem, or the secret life of Philippe Pétain”. « Then appears, the Abbé de Nantes wrote, the great figure of Philippe Pétain, a great Frenchman, a great Christian, whose life would have been upright and exemplary, if it had not been momentarily affected by the disgraceful intrigues of an ambitious woman. The weakness of man is displayed before us, certainly! From the time of this fault, however, the life of the Marshal continues as a long, humiliating, heroic expiation. It was such a man that Providence sent to France to save her, and that it then marked with its noble sign, in order to make him the expiatory victim, the redeeming holocaust. Momentarily forgetful of his oath, he would agree to pay for the rest of his life for this brief infidelity, and would in the end be judged worthy of making this gift of himself once again, and God accepted it. » (CRC n^o 54, March 1972, p. 14)

In 1939, he literally saved Franco-Spanish relations. At an age at which he could have legitimately enjoyed a thoroughly merited glory, he went back to work and carried out his mission with success, beyond all expectations. It was from Madrid that he was called upon by Reynaud, in May 1940, to save the country that was crumbling under the attacks of the German army.

Because he was a good Frenchman, he made a gift of his person and his glory in order to alleviate the misfortune of his people.

Others, who had neither his self-abnegation nor his political charity, held this sacred service against him. Having regained power in August 1944, they resolved to make him pay dearly for their eviction from power in 1940. He then offered himself as a victim. In the mystery of the destiny of the Marshal, his crown lacked the seal of suffering, humiliation and supreme sacrifice.

The iniquitous trial

THE ACCUSATION OF TREASON

As soon as the Marshal learned that he would be judged in absentia by the high court of justice established by General de Gaulle, he asked to return to France « to defend, he said, my honour as a leader and to protect by my presence those who followed me ». De Gaulle sought to avoid this inopportune return. On 26 April 1945, however, the Marshal presented himself at the French frontier.

This was the beginning of a long Calvary. For months, public opinion had been worked on to this end. In September 1944, polls revealed that only 3 % of the French advocated capital punishment, but they were 21 % four months later and 44 % in May 1945. At this date, 16 % of those polled thought that no sentence should be imposed on the Marshal; they were 64 % seven months earlier.

The Marshal arrived on 27 April at the fort of Montrouge, where Simon, a decorated resistance fighter, who was to be his jailer, was expecting him. Simon… Like the tormenter of the young King Louis XVII shut away in the Temple. On the following day, a bailiff came to notify the prisoner of the indictment, written by the public prosecutor, Mornet, and signed on 23 April. It was a long, implausible text in which he was accused of « treason », of « conspiracy against the security of the State », and of « intelligence with the enemy »!

A conspiracy? Yes! A conspiracy against the Republic that the Marshal was said to have hatched long ago, in connivance with Hitler and Franco, and that he carried out by taking power under cover of the defeat and the armistice, with the resulting collaboration of his former accomplices. The Marshal was invited to choose his counsel for the defence. He accepted more than he chose the President of the Bar, Payen, a specialist in civil law, who had just published a “Plea for the French”, a vibrant call in favour of reconciliation. Payen, in turn, called on two young talented lawyers to assist him: Jacques Isorni and Jean Lemaire.

Even before the lawyers were able to begin to perform their functions, pre-trial examination sessions started with a view to the preliminary inquiry. The judge hurried through the inquiry in only eight sessions, when several dozen would have been necessary, but it had to be done quickly: the legal proceedings were to take place in the summer. The Marshal was obviously caught unawares and was uncomfortable with the insidious and biased questions of Bouchardon. The lawyers, present from the second session on, resolved to speak on his behalf during the trial.

A DIVIDED DEFENCE

One may regret this way of proceeding, when one reads the handwritten notes of the Marshal on one point or another of his politics or his diplomacy, written at the time of the preliminary inquiry and that are remarkably clear.

It was thus agreed that silence would be his way of challenging his judges. Isorni wrote a draft of a declaration, which the Marshal corrected, reducing it to make it clearer and briefer.

On 21 July, the day before his transfer to Paris, Canon Potevin, sent specially by the Archbishop of Paris, heard his confession and gave Communion to the Marshal:

« Do you forgive your enemies?

– Yes, wholeheartedly. One day I made the gift of my person to France. I do not take this gift back. Today, however, I say: I make the gift of my person to France and to God. »

THE MARSHAL ASSUMED ALL RESPONSIBILITY

On 23 July at 1 pm, the trial opened at the Paris Law Court. The court was packed and stiflingly hot. The Attorney General Mornet entered. He had announced in advance that he would demand the death penalty. As for Court President Mongibeaux, he declared that « in order to satisfy his personal ambitions and his political designs, Pétain wallowed in abjection to the point of treason ». He sat down between his two assessors and uttered the words that open every criminal trial: « Have the defendant enter. » He appeared in the doorway of the small door to the right. He was in uniform. Everyone in the room rose in a single movement, even his opponents, and they were the majority. « It was a magnetic shock », admitted one of the witnesses.

After the customary presentations, the defence lawyers presented conclusions on the incompetence of the High Court. It was in vain. This Court had been created, they were told, in order to judge the acts of the Vichy government, therefore it had to judge. What could be more in accordance with revolutionary justice! Mr. Lemaire pointed out that the magistrates present had all sworn an oath of fidelity to the person who appeared that day as the defendant.

The Marshal then read his declaration:

« I tell you, in the sight of the whole world, you will condemn an innocent man while thinking that you speak in the name of Justice, and it is an innocent man who will bear the burden, for a marshal of France does not appeal for clemency from anyone. Your judgement will be followed by that of God and that of posterity. They will suffice for my conscience and my memory. »

He took responsibility for everything, and announced:

« I will make no further declaration; I will not reply to any question. My defence attorneys received from me the task of replying to accusations that are designed to sully me and tarnish only those who utter them… » In saying this, he impugned in advance all the false witnesses who were preparing to condemn him.

SELF-WITNESSES

President Mongibeaux called the first witness for the prosecution: Paul Reynaud, Prime Minister during the debacle of 1940. His testimony was considered by everyone to be the speech of a private party doing the work of the prosecutor. Although seated two metres from the accused, he did not glance at him! He endeavoured to demonstrate that Pétain usurped his military glory, that in 1914-1918 he was nothing but a short-sighted, pusillanimous general.

Why then did he call upon the Marshal in May 1940? It was the only « error », it seems, that he acknowledged: « I believed in the patriotism of Marshal Pétain and General Weygand. » Nothing less! Reynaud’s testimony continued the following day. It was too obvious that by appearing as a witness, he was preparing his return to the political arena.

There followed a cross-examination by the defence that raked the former Prime Minister over the coals. The judges and the jury then took offence at the fact that the Marshal’s lawyers were putting a witness in the dock.

Then came Édouard Daladier, who, beneath a correct exterior, tried to support the thesis of a plot against the Republic. He claimed that France was quite capable of confronting her adversary; that we had all the equipment necessary for doing so. Well, of course – since it was he who, as Minister of War from 1936 on, presided over the Counsel during the “Phoney War.” Another pro domo defence. He too was seeking a platform from which to relaunch his political career, and conceded that the Marshal had not « betrayed » his country, but rather « the duties of his office ».

Then it was the turn of Albert Lebrun, President of the Republic in 1940. His eyes were blurred and his hands trembled. Even so, he pointed out, as concerned the 28 March agreement that bound France to England: « Since the English abandoned the joint combat, we were no longer bound » by this agreement. Bravo! At last a truth. The poor wretch, however, did not realise that in saying this he ruined the thesis of Reyaud and De Gaulle, and that, at least morally, he justified the armistice. The frontal attack of the prosecution was crumbling under false witnesses.

« A MYSTERY THAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND »

When the fourth witness came into the box, people in the court were beginning to find that time was passing slowly, because it was always the same events that each one came to tell in his own way, always along the same lines. Léon Blum did not fear to condemn the Marshal. When he referred to the vote to give him full power, the former head of the Popular Front spoke of an « enormous and atrocious breach of moral trust », which he considered the equivalent of treason. Upon hearing the words “breach of trust”, the Marshal, who was listening attentively, reddened with suppressed indignation.

Blum, however, made a blunder that caused an incident in the session. He called into question the magistrates of the Court of Riom, created in 1940 to fix the responsibility for the defeat. President Caous, who had conducted the debates, then asked to speak, and he demonstrated that in this delicate circumstance, the French magistrates had acted freely, with the tacit agreement of the Marshal. Then he turned towards the Attorney General to remind him that he himself had agreed to participate in the Court, and when the latter protested that sooner or later it would have led to a concentration camp, Caous retorted: « You would not have done more or better than we did, your Honour. »

Several months later during a dinner at the French Embassy in Canada, the same Léon Blum made a perfectly clear remark reported by Paul Del Perugia, who at the time was secretary in this embassy: « There would have been nothing with which to reproach the Marshal if he had not violated, as he did, republican secularism, in particular by giving back to the clergy a place that it no longer had, and above all by upsetting republican laws concerning education, and more specifically primary education. »

DISCREDITED WITNESSES

The accusation became grotesque during the two declarations relating to the Marshal’s alleged “plot”. A certain Paul Wincler said that he had been told that the Marshal was heard to have declared in Hendaye, in November 1939: « Wait until next spring, we will also have our national revolution and then, all will change. » Lemaire did not merely content himself with remarking on the feebleness of the testimony, he pointed out that the “witness” had served in the Great War… in the Austrian army. Then, the lawyer quoted a 1944 police report, establishing that Mr. Wincler, after having helped Bela Kun carry out a revolution in Hungary, was, before the war, in charge of the Opera Mundi agency, a sort of “office at the service of Nazi propaganda”.

There are no worse informers than those who seek to have their past forgotten… The accusation was thus impaired, and the deposition of Herriot, after that of Jeanneney, could not restore substance to it. After having been, in July 1940, respectively President of the Chamber of Deputies and President of the Senate, after having preached support of the Marshal to their colleagues, they now came to say that the Marshal had led a coup d’État. They were unconvincing!

This was when Major Loustanau-Lacau intervened. He had been successively Vice-President of the Legion of Veterans, organiser of the Navarre resistance network, and arrested and deported to Germany; he was a hero in his own way… He came back from Mauthausen, his features marked by the suffering he had endured. « I owe nothing to Marshal Pétain, he stated. This, however, does not prevent me from being disgusted by the spectacle of those who, in this room, are attempting to foist upon an almost one hundred-year old man the sum total of all their errors. »

It was then the turn of another deportee, a certain Marcel Paul, to state that the hardest blows against the Resistance came from the police of Vichy. This Communist witness represented for forty years the deportees of the resistance, before serious suspicions were raised concerning his role in the camps…

The prosecution obviously had no luck with its witnesses, as Lemaire would point out in his speech for the defence, in connection with a certain Chaudet, who had come to make a violent deposition against the Marshal: « Pétain, you should kneel before France whom you have betrayed… » A few days later, the same Chaudet was accused of « dealings with the enemy and informing ».

THE PROSECUTION CHANGES THE ACCUSATION

General Weygand arrived in the meantime, and it was he who would reduce to nothing the accusation of treason relative to the armistice. He began by bowing before the Marshal, which no one before him had done and, straightaway he launched a rapid and sustained counter attack, against Paul Renaud. His account of the battle of France was complete, precise and without digression.

Alas! He came up against a wall of hatred and incomprehension. People were unable to judge the facts objectively. At the following hearing an epic duel took place between Weygand and Reynaud that ended with the victory of the former generalissimo.

Foreseeing this rout, Attorney General Mornet took the initiative and, at the beginning of the hearing of 1 August, one was surprised to hear him declare: « The armistice is a fact. The armistice does not constitute one of the counts of indictment… It is the preface to the indictment. » The Attorney General’s abandoning of the main count of indictment, in the middle of the trial, was a dramatic turn of events. This was unheard of! When de Gaulle learned of it, he was furious, because he had made the question of the armistice the very justification of his legend.

« I consider it about time that the Pétain trial begin » Mornet added. Indeed, it was time. For the Attorney General, the Marshal’s treason had begun on 11 July 1940. What happened on that day? An attack against the Republic; it was the inexpiable crime of Pétain. Nevertheless, it had to be proved that there was a crime. The witnesses for the defence, who then followed one another, obviously took a completely different line.

THE WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENCE

Even today, their depositions (there were forty-three of them!) constitute an impressive collection of indisputable historical testimonies, which not only clears the Marshal of all crime, but also gives the true measure of his service to France.

General Héring, for example, recalled that General Pétain, who was reputed to be defensive and pusillanimous, earned his stars in 1914-1918 by offensives. He began to explain that in 1934, when he was Minister of War, he had wanted to rearm France in order to prepare her to once again confront the German army, but President Mongibeaux bluntly interrupted him: « Get to the point! » and the general was unable to finish his demonstration.

General Georges, a veteran of the Northeast armies, went to North Africa in November 1942. He reported a remark of Churchill: « The armistice did us a service. Hitler made a mistake in accepting it. » General Vauthier, the principal private secretary of the Marshal during his embassy to Spain then dispelled, in case the notion still existed, the idea of a Spanish plot. General Serring also gave high praise to his former leader. Relating his refusal to leave for Algiers, he declared: « To the crown of glory that I was offering to him and that he could have so easily seized, he preferred the crown of thorns. It was all the same, gentlemen, a noble sacrifice. I hope that you will understand it. If you do not understand it, History will. »

The telegram of Admiral Leahy, the former ambassador of the United States to Vichy was read, which spoke of his friendship and admiration for the Marshal, while making a few reservations about his politics. All of this obviously cleared the Marshal of the accusation of treason.

THE REPROBATE PIERRE LAVAL

On 3 August, the hearing was suspended. This was caused by the return of the former Prime Minister, Pierre Laval, handed over to the Americans by Franco, and by them to the French. He entered the room, or rather the arena, like a wounded animal. Thinner and gone grey, stooped, and glancing with uneasy eyes to the right and the left, little by little he regained self-confidence. He would speak for two days, with remarkable persuasiveness and precision. The Marshal listened attentively, yet he was visibly irritated at not being able to rectify certain of the allegations of his former Prime Minister. When they came to the famous declaration: « I hope for the victory of Germany, for without it, Communism will reign over Europe », Laval explained that it was made to obtain concessions, to force the trust of the Germans. « With the Marshal’s approval? » the president asked. « Yes », Laval replied. « No », the Marshal rectified, seething with anger.

A PURELY FRENCH “GAME”

On Monday, 6 August, the hearings resumed their planned course. On this same day the bomb of Hiroshima exploded, which would hasten the end of the war. The Marshal learned about it and the strategist in him awoke: « I am going to study the question, he confided to Simon, for it will probably drastically change the facts of the war. » Indeed, he was right!

The defence witnesses succeeded one another. Admiral Fernet and Jacques Chevalier, a friend of Lord Halifax, spoke of the secret agreements concluded with England and emphasised their fortunate consequences. They showed, and this was important, that the Marshal’s politics were a purely French game:

« I do not practice a politics of double dealing, the Marshal declared to Chevalier, who reported it in his deposition […]. I have only one word; I am faithful to it. I am loyal towards both sides. With the one side, I signed an armistice; I respect the armistice, and this at the actual, formal desire of the English, who say that a breach of the armistice would cause the intervention of Germany. On the other hand, I am loyal and friendly with the English, because, in the limit of the field that is left open to me, which is not very big, I do all that is in my power to facilitate their task and to prepare their victory, which will be our own; at the same time, he told me, that I resist the demands of the Germans as much as possible »

To everyone’s astonishment, a general officer on active duty, General Lafargue, the director of the Infantry at the Ministry of War, the former Chief of Staff of the De Lattre Army, had to courage to come in uniform to testify as a defence witness. The following day it was learned that the general was suspended and that his promotion to the rank of lieutenant general was revoked. That is justice in a revolutionary period…

All impartial minds could but adhere to these statements explaining the Marshal’s politics, and hail the work that had been accomplished. General Juin also agreed to come to testify about what the Marshal had done for the Army of Africa. Two days before his appearance in court, however, de Gaulle sent him on mission to Germany. He then wrote a text, which would be read at the hearing without having the force of oral testimony.

After the soldiers came professionals like Bouthillier and Berthelot who recalled how, under the authority of the Marshal and under the direction of his ministers, they reconstructed devastated France and prepared her renaissance.

Canon Rodhain, National Chaplain of prisoners and deportees, testified in vain to the constant concern that the Marshal showed to them; hearts were too hardened to be touched. Ecclesiastics and members of religious orders were, alas! remarkably absent from the court. Only the reading of a letter from Cardinal Liénart recalled that a clergy existed in France. It was a worthy declaration, but one in which the cardinal took care to distance himself from the « obscure and painful role » that the Marshal had played for four years. Let us not forget that our Lord Bishops of France had sworn allegiance to the new power the previous March!

The last witness to present himself was General Lannurien, a hero of 1914-1918, covered with wounds and medals, almost blind. He was a good orator and his eloquence of an old soldier defending his superior was so poignant that part of audience applauded.

A DEADLY CLOSING SPEECH FOR THE PROSECUTION

The following day, 11 August, the Attorney General Mornet summed up for the prosecution. He cloaked himself in offended republican virtue in order to recount the stages of the plot that allowed the Marshal to carry out the overthrow of the regime. Was there a plot? « I suspect so, he said, but I have no proof of it [what an admission!]; therefore I cannot maintain it » Three weeks of debates, twenty hearings had thus proved nothing?

Mornet then related in his own way the defeat of France, not the real defeat: our one-hundred thousand dead, the routed French army, eight million people on the roads fleeing the German invasion, France’s administrative apparatus completely disorganised, etc. No! For him, the defeat is “the idea” that certain defeatist minds imposed on France. With an incredible self-assurance, he erased the facts; or rather he escaped from them in order to exalt the chimera of an undefeated and still fighting France. Hence the crime of the Marshal of having signed the armistice, then destroyed the republican regime, the better to come to an understanding with the enemy and model his own regime on theirs.

He had long announced that he had “decisive documents”; just wait and see! Nothing was seen. Mornet provided no decisive proof to support his thesis. The document reported in the bill of indictment concerning the membership of the Marshal in a secret organisation was proved to be a fake during the trial.

The Marshal appeared attentive from start to finish. He was seen reacting, sometimes shaking his head “no”, sometimes turning round, indignant, towards his counsels. At times, his pale face blushed slightly. Nevertheless he had taken it upon himself to be silent and he remained silent. He did well, in the face of the density of the lies and hatred that oozed from this summation.

When Mornet’s conclusion was pronounced, it was known in advance: « It is the death penalty that I ask the High Court of Justice to pronounce against the man who was Marshal Pétain. »

A POSTHUMOUS TRIAL

Let us take note that the Jewish question was hardly mentioned in either the debates or the summation: only seventeen lines out of thirty-three pages. The question was not particularly incriminating. At that time the name of Pétain was associated with Montoire, not with Auschwitz. It is another case that has been made against the Marshal since 1970, accusing him of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity in his collaboration with the Nazi occupying forces.

In actual fact, in the climate of mortal hatred that was then reigning in Paris and in all France, if the deportation of the Jews had been a decisive grievance for condemning the Marshal to death, it would have been used. The Marshal had replied in advance to his detractors in his declaration at the first hearing of the trial:

« History will reveal all that I spared you, when my adversaries only think of blaming me for the inevitable. »

A DEFENCE IN FIVE STAGES AND THREE APPROACHS

The speeches for the defence would last two days, the 13 and 14 August. The three lawyers divided the task among them: the President of the Bar, Payen, would follow his client through the favourable facts, documents and testimonies. Mr. Lemaire would tackle the prosecution and its witnesses. As for Isorni, he would have the most delicate part in the context of a jury composed of adversaries and victims, namely the question of the maintaining of order, and of repression under Vichy. All three of them banked on the call that they would make in favour of the reconciliation of the French, forgetting the hatred that drove some of the members of the jury in this highly political trial.

Payen spoke first and, with a particular exactitude, began the methodical and chronological examination of the Marshal’s actions. His argumentation, perfect as such, will remain for history a remarkable summary. Yet, for such a trial, it was hardly suitable. Few listened to him.

With Mr. Lemaire, the tone changed; the defence regained its vigour. Straightaway Mornet was the target: « Let me be simply allowed to point out, Mr. Attorney General, that you are a passionate servant of the law… and of the government. » As he furiously protested, Lemaire went through his summation point by point, which was composed, he said, « by mutilating texts ». Attorney General Mornet, who tried several times to argue against this implacable attack, lamentably ensnared himself.

« I can but approve of what my counsel has said » the Marshal declared when Mr. Lemaire was seated. It was the only speech for the defence that the Marshal would praise. In the evening, he confided to his wife, with a glint of joy in his eyes: « Lemaire was great. What a hammering Mornet got! »

The following day, Payen took up were he had left off, that is to say at the study of the facts from the month of July 1940, but he was not as good as on the previous day, inasmuch as he pleaded “senility”, as one says in the law profession, referring to « the Marshal’s tendency to feel tired » and putting responsibility on Laval, the « evil genius ». This did not prevent the President of the Bar from clearly expounding the Marshal’s tactic, that of a protective wall between the occupying forces and the French people. The Marshal, however, did not succeed in concealing his discontent: « He pleaded senility! he said at the suspension of the hearing. Let him come pit himself against me, and he’ll find out whether I’m senile. »

At last, Isorni moved forward. His speech for the defence was awaited by everyone. He had the reputation of being eloquent, and he knew it… and he did not want to disappoint. It is true that his subject lent itself to the emotional, not to say, passionate side. He wanted to tell the truth without shocking. Leaving aside all that concerned statistics and other details, he addressed the members of the jury, appealing to their conscience.

« Your dead, believe me, we mourn them together. Yet there are other Frenchmen who also died from German bullets, and who at the moment of death, cried out: “Long live the Marshal!” » He concluded, resonant and full of pathos, his arms stretched towards the tribunal, in a great appeal for general reconciliation, asking that French blood would cease to flow. « You bear in your hands the destiny of France. » Emotion was at its height, even among the members of the jury.

Let us stop for a moment. When the emotion of Isorni’s speech for the defence subsided, what remained? Two theses clashed, he explained to the jury: that of the Marshal, who wanted « to safeguard, defend, and acquire material advantages but often at the price of moral concessions » and that of the Resistance, which « did not seek to avoid immediate sacrifices. In the continuation of the combat, it saw first of all moral advantages. » In short, he attributed to the Marshal the safeguard of material interests at the expense of honour, and to the Resistance, the safeguard of honour at the expense of material interests.

This is senseless. The Marshal of course wanted to safeguard the material interests of France, but also and above all to rehabilitate her morally, to make her learn the lesson of the defeat and bring about a “national revolution” in minds and hearts as well as in institutions. The Resistance refused to assume the consequences of the defeat. Rebellious to the legitimate power, it forfeited its honour.

It would have been desirable if the defence of the Marshal had raised itself to the level of the accusation, and entirely cleansed the Marshal’s honour, by denouncing the hypocrisy of his accusers and the iniquity of such a trial. To unmask the Adversary would have been more useful to the cause of the Marshal and to History than to have reinforced the myth of the Resistance and its purging Liberation.

« I DEFENDED THEM AS I DEFENDED VERDUN »

The speeches of the counsels for the defence have passed away, but the final declaration of the Marshal remains. When the President asked him if he had something to add, the defendant rose and, with the same royal tone as at the beginning of the trial declared:

« During this trial, I have voluntarily kept silent, after having explained to the French people the reasons for my attitude.

« My thought, my only thought was to remain with them on French soil, in accordance with my promise, in order to attempt to protect them and to alleviate their sufferings.

« Come what may, they will never forget it. I know that I defended them as I defended Verdun. »

One must be familiar with the Battle of Verdun, the 90^th anniversary of which we are presently celebrating, in order to understand the profundity of such words. The Marshal defended and saved France in 1940-1944, as he defended Verdun in 1916, that is to say with the same method, quietly, without pride, hour by hour, under the almost unbearable pressure of the enemy, with whatever he had at hand, showing in all his actions an application and a self-abnegation, which makes him the greatest military leader and the greatest head of State of our contemporary history.

And the Marshal concluded:

« Your Honours, my life and my liberty are in your hands, but I confide my honour to the country. Dispose of me according to your consciences. Mine does not reproach me for anything because, during an already long life and having arrived by age at the threshold of death, I affirm that I had no another ambition but to serve France. »

The debates were closed. The Court withdrew. Its deliberations would last seven hours.

CONDEMNED TO DEATH BY A SINGLE VOICE

It would be learned later how the deliberations unfolded: there were twenty-seven members in the jury, the three judges acting as advisers. The jurors were surprised to hear President Mongibeaux propose to them a sentence of banishment of four or five years, undoubtedly the time for the Marshal to die in a foreign land. The jurors from the “resistance” continued to demand the death sentence, while the parliamentary jurors were opposed to it. Among them was a Jew, Lévy Alphandéry. After many discussions, by a secret vote, fourteen jurors reached a verdict for the death penalty, thirteen against. The Marshal was thus condemned by a single voice, as was Louis XVI!

The Revolution triumphed over him who had wanted to oppose it in its very principles. Yet when one goes through the minutes of such a trial sixty years later, one is forced to conclude that it was a travesty, a lie, an iniquity; there was nothing similar in any of the countries occupied by Nazi Germany and liberated by the Allies. All was judged in advance, the prosecution displayed a « disgusting » bias, and despite the weakness of the defence, the innocence of Philippe Pétain, Marshal of France, shines forth on every page. To have condemned him to death is a sin that will remain on the conscience of France, as long as this trial is not reconsidered nor the sentence annulled.

At 4 o’clock in the morning, the Marshal was awakened, and in the pale light of the day that was dawning, the President read out the verdict:

« On these grounds, Pétain is condemned to death, to national indignity, to confiscation of his property. »

The president added: « Taking into account the great age of the accused, the High Court of Justice expresses the wish that the death sentence should not be carried out. »

The Marshal was impassive. As the sentence was to enter into effect immediately, he left between two guards. It remained for him to bring to perfection his sacrifice by a long prison toil, in the total gift of his person and his glory « to France… and to God »

Victim for his people

AT THE FORT OF PORTALET

No bitterness filled the soul of the convict. When he heard the name of the director of the penitentiary administration who was taking charge of him, Mr. Amor, he made this charming repartee: Amor? Just like me! ¹ » During the trip to the Fort of Portalet in the Pyrenees, he asked his neighbour: « Were you present at my trial? The President of the Bar Payen has many, many qualities. Yet he should not have tried to find excuses for me, and especially not my age. »

When the Marshal arrived at the fort, as he passed by, none of the guards stood to attention and some of them took hostile attitudes, to the point of turning their back on the prisoner. Before the door stood an officer of the 4^th Regiment of Zouaves. He opened it, the Marshal entered alone into the jail cell, and glanced about: bars at the window, a bedstead with a sleeping bag, an old straw chair, and a wooden table. There was nothing else. Then the Marshal, turning round towards those who had accompanied him, said to them simply: « Thank you Gentlemen. » The guard closed and bolted the door…

On 17 August, de Gaulle commuted the death sentence into life imprisonment. This punishment does not exist in the French Penal Code for political prisoners, on whom only a time-limited detention can be inflicted.

The stay in Portalet was very painful for the Marshal. The isolation, confinement, absence of mail rapidly got the better of his vigorous constitution, especially after the terrible tension of the trial. He pulled himself together, however, and by his patience and kindness, succeeded in winning the affection of his guards.

The Marshal’s wife was authorised to live in Urdos, the closest village to Portalet from 1 to 15 October. She was allowed to see the prisoner one hour per day and in the presence of a guard. On 17 October, however, she was informed not only that she should no longer go to the fort but that she would have to leave Urdos. On 20 October, after the departure of his wife, the Marshal had another fit of discouragement. « I’ve had enough, he said to his guard, I’m not well. You see the window of my cell: if there were no bars, I would throw myself into the stream. I think that that is the solution: to disappear. » Poor Marshal! His Calvary was only beginning.

On 5 and 6 November, Mr. Isorni and Mr. Lemaire came to visit him. When they left, learning that they were going to Lourdes, the Marshal urged them « to speak of me to the Lady of Lourdes ».

Eight days after General Héring, the former Governor of Paris, intervened with the head of the provisional government on behalf of the Marshal, he learned of his transfer to Île d’Yeu. He would have preferred an island in the Mediterranean, but he exclaimed: « At least I will see the sea. » Had he known…

The commander of the corvette L’Amiral-Mouchez and his sailors, who took the prisoner to Île d’Yeu, contravening orders, paid military honours to him. « Sir, here is your room » the commander said to him while opening for him his own set of rooms. The sailors stood at attention as soon as they saw the Marshal, as though he were on a tour of inspection.

On 16 November 1945, around 9 o’clock in the morning, the corvette laid anchor at Île d’Yeu.

FORT OF PIERRE-LEVÉE

As soon as he debarked, the Marshal was taken to Fort of Pierre-Levée, a good kilometre from Port-Joinville. The “citadel” as it is called by the inhabitants of Île d’Yeu, is comprised of a two-story central building, two wings of casemates and a large courtyard about 130 metres by 100. The whole is surrounded by a wide moat surmounted by a sloping bank that makes any exterior view impossible.

In the room, an iron bed with its two regulation blankets, a chest of drawers, a closet and a deal table, two wooden chairs but no armchair. On the table a washbowl, and beside it an enamelled iron ewer. There was no electricity at the fort, at least in the first months; no potable drinking water either; they went to fetch it in casks, three miles away. A wood stove for the prisoner’s room. It was all very humid and cold…

His first enemy, the Marshal knew, would be solitude. Reading was not enough. He decided to start learning English and asked to be subscribed to an English or American political review that would keep him up to date on international issues. He wished above all to follow the material and moral reconstruction of France. His wish was not granted. Then, with miserable means, the oldest prisoner in the world struggled day after day against intellectual disintegration. The hardest fight took place at night. The torture of insomnia had started in Portalet, causing him to spend entire nights in his armchair. Now, there was not even an armchair. No light after 11 pm, impossible to read a book. It was obscurity, solitude, total imprisonment.

Every night he made an exhausting mental effort. He wanted to remember all his acts as head of State. « I try to take stock, he said to his lawyers, when they came to see him. Believe me, I do it with the greatest severity possible against myself. Yet I do not understand how they can treat me as they do. I only thought of loving the French, of being the closer to them. He hesitated a little before adding: I governed France with love. »

He manifested this love of France each morning by attending, standing at attention behind the screened window of his room, the hoisting of the colours that took place in the courtyard. Since there was no question of attending it without being washed and dressed, it was a good reason to get up and maintain a set schedule.

The days passed, empty and dismal. « Patience is presently the essential virtue to practice, he wrote on 7 December 1945 to his wife. Let us give ourselves a mutual example, for life is quite painful at the moment. » On 12 December he once again took up his pen to confide to her: « I need to have you close to me for a few weeks in order to be reconciled with life. There is something dreadful about this permanency behind bars: it creates a painful frame of mind over which time has no sway and that your presence alone can contribute to calming. This is what I have come to. Obviously the dungeon does not suit my temperament. I would have to take walks of several kilometres in order to dispose myself to sleep. Nights without sleep are terrible. The darkness fills them with phantoms, and the feeble hope of an improved life that I sometimes entertain during the day vanishes during the long sleepless nights. » This was unspeakable agony, a true martyrdom inflicted on an old man for six years.

« The Marshal with a bowl » The picture went round the world, to the shame of France.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE ABBÉ PONTHOREAU

The Abbé Ponthoreau, the dean of Île d’Yeu, was the distressed witness of this. Since the Prefect of the Vendée had asked him to provide religious worship in the fort, he celebrated Mass there for the first time on 23 December 1945 and from then on he came back to the fort to celebrate it every Sunday and met with the Marshal each Thursday. He was not a supporter of Pétain, but he was won over by the magnetism of the prisoner.

« The Marshal received Communion only at Easter. I saw him, however, kneeling before the Host, tears in his eyes, the neck craned, and his lips murmuring prayers of his own invention, with the ardent faith of an eleven year-old child. »

FIRST ALARMS

In February 1946, the Marshal became ill and began to ramble. It was the first attack of the senility that would get the better of his excellent health. In mid March, the Marshal’s wife came to stay on Île d’Yeu for a week. She was able to see her husband every day: a half-hour conversation, always in the presence of a guard. The remainder of the day, she stayed at the Travellers’ Hotel run by Gaston Nolleau. Then she left. On 24 April it was the turn of the lawyers, Isorni and Lemaire. After exchanging greetings, the Marshal spoke to them about the rehearing of his trial: were they ready to plead? What exactly did the expression “national indignity” mean?

« Do not forget, you must ask for my rehabilitation, even after my death, he said to them.

– Sir, you said yourself a few years ago that patience was the most necessary form of courage.

– I am patient; I accept everything.

– We must let the time of hatred pass.

– Hatred? I do not understand hatred. I have never felt it. For me, hatred is too complicated. »

The Marshal held one of his guards named Roi in esteem. One day the latter accidentally spilt a pail of water in the Marshal’s room. The prisoner said to him: « Oh dear, I am going to help you sponge it up. You must not be caught by the director! » Simon arrived at that very moment when the Marshal and his guard were both on all fours, sponging up the pool of water. It is superfluous to say how much Roi was touched by this gesture.

Even though all was done to make the Marshal forget his dignity and his past glory, as with the little King Louis XVII in his prison at the Temple! the prisoner had lost nothing of his character. On 11 November 1946, the Nolleau couple at the Traveller’s Hotel made a selection from among the flowers that had been sent to the Marshal, and a bouquet was taken to the fort to decorate his cell. Simon arrived unexpectedly and whispered in the ear of the guard, thinking that the prisoner could not hear: « There are too many flowers here. »

The Marshal of the Great War had heard. He rose and thumped his fist on the table exclaiming: « All the same, the Boches, I defeated them! » This was the only manifestation of anger during his captivity.

THE GOVERNMENT’S HARASSMENT

On the one side were kindness, charity, and heroic forgiveness. On the other were hatred and harassment against the old prisoner and all that he represented… In June 1946, Isorni and Lemaire addressed a letter to Georges Bidault, the head of the government, in which they drew his attention to the inhuman conditions of life imposed on a Marshal of France. Bidault’s good Christian-Democrat conscience was not aroused.

In February 1947, Vincent Auriol was elected to the presidency of the fourth Republic. The Marshal’s lawyers hoped to obtain a relaxing of the regulations of Pierre-Levée. It was in vain. In July a parliamentary commission of inquiry debarked on Île d’Yeu with a view to questioning the prisoner on the events of 1939-1945. Nolleau, the hotel keeper of Port-Joinville, testified: « BEFORE: They were cheerful, self-confident, almost mocking… “Yes, he will have the same attitude as during the trial. He will hide behind his lapses of memory. He will remain silent…” AFTER: cautious, restrained conversations, almost in whispers. One of them let it slip: “Yes, he is indeed the man we needed in 1940!” »

When he was questioned on the conditions of his incarceration, the Marshal replied that he had nothing to say: « I committed myself to accepting all obligations. I ask for nothing, not for a relaxation of my imprisonment, nothing at all. If it is judged opportune to do it, I will willingly accept. I will go to the end, to my death. If I must finish my life in this milieu; I accept it in advance. »

The news which, at that time, worried the Marshal the most did not concern his liberation or some kind of alleviation of his condition, but the condemnation of those who were accused of the “crime” of having obeyed him, the legitimate head of the French state. « It is unbelievable! We must protest against so much injustice! »

THE GREATEST SOLACE

In April 1948, a “Committee for the liberation of the Marshal” was formed under the aegis of General Héring and the historian Louis Madelin. On the other hand, the left-wing movements went wild: « To liberate Pétain is to disavow the Resistance and to rehabilitate Hitler. » Paul Claudel: « The Marshal must take his medicine to the last drop. » As for General de Gaulle, now retired from power, his remarks were unequivocal: « He is guilty and on the very grounds of the importance of his function; more than any other, he must take the just punishment of his faults. »

On the following 4 June, his lawyers came to visit him. The announced to him that they were going to Rome where, with the help of Léon Bérard, they were hoping to obtain an audience with Pius XII. Yet, Isorni attested, what interested the Marshal at that time was the book that had just been published by Louis-Dominique Girard, his former principal private secretary: Montoire, a Diplomatic Verdun. « It is a masterpiece! » the Marshal said. Girard has brought out all my ideas. The book is huge, but there are no useless words. We must count Girard among our friends. »

The Abbé Ponthoreau stated: « Mr. Girard can boast of having given Marshal Pétain the greatest comfort that anyone gave him in his prison. For after reading this book, the convict understood that the judgement of History, to which he had appealed, would be in his favour. »

On 11 September, Henri Queuille became head of the government. Favourable to clemency, he received Mr. Isorni on 26 September. Yet he did not have the courage to confront the opposition.

On 4 November, the Minister of Justice decided to have a film made, in order to « prove that the prisoner is not as miserable at the citadel as his wife and his lawyers would have it believed ». We were able to see this archive film. Everything is arranged to prove that the « prisoner is not so miserable… » Many views of the sea, for example, while the Marshal never saw it. The prisoner, however, went along with it all with his customary good grace. After the “filming” of the meal, the Marshal whispered in the ear of Laspougeas: « Come back more often. The ordinary fare is improved when you are here. »

On 10 February 1949, Simon received the order from the government to buy immediately what was needed to refurnish « in a more comfortable manner » the Marshal’s room. Despite the reluctance of the Minister of Justice, the president of the Council had just decided to send three doctors to the Marshal. They were deeply moved upon seeing the prisoner and concluded that it was necessary to have him leave the island as soon as possible. The report went right up to the Council of Ministers, where it was blocked. On 7 April, Simon indicated that, for the first time, the Marshal had lost his memory for a whole day and spoke incoherently. At the Council, Jules Moch exclaimed: « It is a scandal. I will resign rather than accept [the liberation of the Marshal]. » Once again the moderates yielded to the furious.

It was simply decided to transform Fort of Pierre-Levée into a prison hospital. New health personnel took over. This traumatised the Marshal. To his lawyers who came to visit him in June he confided, smiting his forehead: « What is happening here. Ah! How my poor brain is tired. All is empty. It will come back, however, don’t worry. I would only like to know if the grievances brought against me are dishonourable. They are not, are they? My honour is intact? [When his lawyers assured him of this…] What good you do me; what joy you bring me! My God, I could not hope for as much! Get me out of here, please. Sometimes I seem to be joking. But how disgraceful this all is! Yes, disgraceful, really. Ah! Get me out of here. You do not know what it is like to be deprived of freedom!»

IF HE LAYS DOWN HIS LIFE IN EXPIATION…

It is not we who « attribute this to him », it is his ordinary chaplain, Canon Ponthoreau, who wrote:

« At the Citadel, I found an old man purified and increased in stature by suffering, who bore his pain in a spirit of expiation and who prayed. »

In June 1949, the Bishop of Luçon asked the Religious of the Sacred Hearts of Mormaison to send two sisters to keep the Marshal company. They took turns doing this until his death. Their testimony reveals the deeply religious soul of the Marshal and gives meaning to his sufferings.

Sr. Yvonne Berthomé: « One of his dominant virtues was simplicity, without, however, departing from his dignity and his respect for others. He was very simple; he did not overwhelm you with his personality. He did not seek to be served; he always excused himself if he happened to make a blunder. He never complained, and criticised no one, not even those who could have alleviated his lot. His entire person bore witness to the great man he had been for France; one could feel a courage and an energy to vanquish all trials. »

Sr. Jeanne Challu: « I will never forget my first visit to the Fort, when I saw the Marshal for the first time. He appeared very noble, despite the simplicity, even the bareness of the two rooms of which he disposed. He was excessively kind. One afternoon we were taking our usual walk. The nurse who accompanied him had difficulty walking due to a sprain; when the Marshal realised this, he simply asked to return to his room. »

Sr. Alice Raynaud: « I had him recite the Our Father, some Hail Marys; he liked to pray. Despite his loss of memory, he liked to speak of his family in Cauchy-à-la-Tour, of his years of study at Saint-Cyr, and when he spoke of his uncle who was a priest, it was always with great veneration. The Marshal liked to sing, and he sang well. He still took a little pride in his pleasant voice; it was a pleasure for me to listen to him… »

« Sister, why are you with me all day? »

– In order to render you all the services that you need and to make your lot lighter, Sir.

– It is true that I like nuns very much; that is why I was given some. I like very much to know that people pray for me. When I know that an order comes from God, I never ask why, I accept it quite simply.

« Someone asked him this question: “Sir, what are the main qualities that a man in charge of power must have?” Several of these qualities were suggested to him: to have great experience, to be well informed, etc. He replied:

– Yes all that is good, he must have all of these qualities, but you are forgetting the principal one: above all he needs honesty, yes, much honesty. It is difficult to govern a people when they are only working for themselves, for their personal interests.

IN A CASEMATE OFF THE COURT

On 16 September 1949, when his lawyers came to visit him, the Marshal did not recognise them. The new director was more accommodating concerning regulations, perhaps due to the physical state of the Marshal that was worsening notably.

Up there, in Paris, however, the government stood by its decision.

The end of the year was bad for the Marshal: amnesia, incontinence and cardiac insufficiency… All this led to the belief that the end was near. With the new year, however, good health returned. Nonetheless, a coffin was brought from the continent and stored in the casemate adjoining that of the Marshal. For in June 1950, since the prisoner was no longer able to descend from his cell, the Minister of Justice ordered the fitting-out of a casemate opening onto the court.

The winter of 1950-1951 was unending and on 7 April, the Marshal was struck with a congestion of the lungs. The invalid, aware of the gravity of his state, recited the Ave Maria and twice, when he was shaken by a violent fit of hiccups, he sighed: « Poor Philippe! » The priest rushed to him. When the gaze of the Marshal encountered that of the priest, he understood and asked to confess.

« Sir, the priest said to him after having given him absolution, you made to the France the gift of your person. Do you consent to offer to her your martyrdom as a sacrifice? – Yes, I do. I really do. » Then the Marshal kissed the hand of the priest.

Petitions came flooding in from all over the world asking for a pardon to be granted to the prisoner. The most zealous were the Canadians. A committee placed under the patronage of Maisonneuve was formed in Montreal, grouping thousands of good people who had been revolted by the Marshal’s condemnation. In this month of April, this committee asked the favour of receiving a lock of his hair. This was the occasion of a small plot between the Marshal, the nurse and… the director of the fort who, learning of the theft, also demanded a lock for himself! When the Marshal learned about it, he said for the benefit of his dear Canadians: « Let them keep my hair, since I keep their heart. » The members of the Committee placed the hair in a reliquary attached to a sanctuary lamp, with the promise that it would be kept burning until the complete rehabilitation of the Marshal. Is it still burning?

For his part, in Paris, the President of the Republic had decided to grant a medical pardon to the Marshal, but the decision would not be made public until after the elections. On 8 June, the medical grace was granted, but it did not become effective until the evening of the elections, on 17 June.

On 29 June, the Marshal was transferred early in the morning from the fort to the village of Port-Joinville, to the house of Paul Luco. Seeing a tree branch swaying in the air, the Marshal exclaimed: « At last, trees! » The following morning, relates Miss Combaluzier, « at 6 o’clock, when the Angelus bells began to ring, very pure, very cheerful in the limpid morning air, the Marshal opened his eyes with a happy expression on his face. His voice rose:

« Ah! bells! »

« I came towards him. »

– Yes, bells; it is a pleasure to hear them, isn’t it, Sir?

– Oh! Yes, how nice!

« Then he went peacefully back to sleep. »

The fever, however, came back again, and soon the Marshal slipped into a coma. He constantly repeated: « France, flag… », then at other moments: « They are shouting in the trenches! » He passed away on 23 July filled with these memories of Verdun. « Around 8 o’clock, related the nurse, the gaze of the dying man became very fixed and the beating of the heart imperceptible. At 9:15, I was alerted by a change in the rhythm of his respiration. Rapidly, I felt his pulse: it was uncountable. The doctor was preparing to leave to inform the Marshal’s wife of his fear: “Captain, I said, I think that it is the end.” It was 9:22. His hand in mine, Philippe Pétain, Marshal of France, had finished waging his last combat. »

« THOUGH DEAD, HE SPEAKS STILL »

The government immediately blocked the telephone lines from the island, which were to remain for an hour at the sole disposition of the Administration. Nevertheless, something extraordinary frustrated the plans of the authorities. Sailors ran to the dock, boarded their boats and hastily cast off. They headed for the boats already on the open sea, hailed them with their short-range radiotelegraphy or even by voice: “The Marshal is dead” The news spread thus from one boat to another in the Bay of Biscay and in the English Channel, all along the Atlantic coast, and the big ships that it reached transmitted it in turn with their radios. The news crossed the Atlantic, reaching the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean; foreign stations picked it up, interrupting their broadcasts to announce: “Marshal Pétain is dead!” The telephone lines of Île d’Yeu were still blocked and the news had gone round the world.

When the news reached Paris, a silent crowd, recollected, filed continuously throughout the day before the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, under the Arch of Triumph. When night fell, thousands of bouquets of flowers placed there from the morning formed a gigantic cross, at the very place where the victor of Verdun, the Generalissimo of the French armies, had passed by on his white horse, on the day of the Victory parade, thirty-two years before. It was a vigil of honour, a silent homage of the real country, in spite of all the bans of the legal country.

In the meantime, on Île d’Yeu, the wake began. The Marshal was dressed in his uniform, bearing only his military medal as decoration. The nun placed in his hands his Rosary beads, a gift from the Carmel of Lisieux. Veterans who had rushed there from the Vendée and Brittany, however, did not have the right to enter and to pray beside their leader. So they gathered in the narrow street in front of the closed house and, together, they recited the Rosary. After each decade, they repeated the invocation: « Saints of France, pray for our old Leader! » After the last invocation, a lone voice was heard:

« Sir, forgive France! »

The funeral took place on the 25^th. Despite difficulties of all kinds raised by public authorities, a crowd of seven thousand people was assembled around the church. General Weygand, in uniform, headed the funeral procession. Around 11:30, the coffin, covered with the French tricolour, carried by eight men, six veterans and two prisoners of war, left the villa for Notre-Dame de Bon-Port. Canon Potevin officiated in the presence of Mgr Chappoulie and Mgr Cazaux. The latter delivered a funeral oration.

A few days later, the Bishop of Luçon received this letter from a young Eudist, Fr. Joseph Hamon: « May a simple French priest express to you his deep joy, his pride, his admiration, for the role you played at the funeral of Marshal Pétain and the words that you uttered on this grave and solemn occasion. Thus, the whole world will know that there are still bishops in France who know how to take courageously the side of truth, honour and justice. »

ALL IS FINISHED… ALL BEGINS

Marshal Pétain reposes in the little cemetery on Île d’Yeu, surrounded by pines and cypress, under a white tombstone, marked with his seven gold stars and surmounted by the white cross of military cemeteries.

It may be said of Marshal Pétain what our Father wrote one day of the little King Louis XVII: that he expiated, that he paid in his person for the sins of his people. Nevertheless, for them to be saved, they must will it; let them turn with veneration and gratitude towards their saviour, abhorring the mad ideas and the impious acts that caused his death and his dishonour. More than the returning of the ashes of the Marshal to Douamont, this is what will be the sign, tomorrow, of the resurrection of our country.

Frère Thomas.

 1) This repartee is prompted by the assonance between the name of the director: Amor and the French expression – “condamné à mort” (condemned to death)