Jacques Pauwels - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Jacques Pauwels
Investig'Action, 2024
La Tour Eiffel a été sans aucun doute le point central et la superstar des récents Jeux Olympique... more La Tour Eiffel a été sans aucun doute le point central et la superstar des récents Jeux Olympiques de Paris. C'est compréhensible, puisque le chef-d'oeuvre de Gustave Eiffel est l'emblème de la ville depuis longtemps. Cependant, la tour est aussi un symbole de la richesse et du pouvoir de la bourgeoisie, de la « classe capitaliste », un patriciat dont les rangs exclusifs comprennent également les dames et les messieurs du Comité international olympique (CIO). Un soupçon d'histoire peut nous aider à comprendre la centralité de la tour dans le récent spectacle olympique dans la « ville lumière ».
Global Research, 2024
, the leaders of North America and Western Europe flocked to the beaches of Normandy, France to p... more , the leaders of North America and Western Europe flocked to the beaches of Normandy, France to pay tribute to the historic battle fought between the allied forces and the Nazis for control of France and to eventually overthrow the Nazis. This battle took its toll, but the Allies emerged victorious. However, at the ceremonies, no mention whatsoever was extended to the role of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, in which the casualty rate was far greater, the Nazi presence far greater, and the victory a key to the success in the West. In fact, the only reference to Russia was in State leader's speeches equating Vladmir Putin to the next Adolf Hitler! The facts of the defeat of Germany mainly at the hands of the Soviet Union are laid out in a conversation with Canadian-Belgian historian Jacques Pauwels in the recent episode of the Global Research News Hour. Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, is a renowned author, historian and political scientist, Research associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. His books include The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War (second edition, 2015), Big Business and Hitler (2017), and Myths of Modern History: From the French Revolution to the 20th century world wars and the Cold War-new perspectives on key events (2022). The following incisive interview with Michael Welch was recorded on June 25, 2024. Global Research: You must have caught some of the footage of earlier this month of D-Day. What struck you most about what was said and what was not said during the day of festivities 80 years later? Jacques Pauwels: Well, Michael, I've been to Normandy quite a few times. And I've actually was there in 1995. And it was then the 40th, the 50th anniversary of the landings in Normandy. And it's quite, of course, a moving experience to be there as all these World War commemorations tend to be. One cannot help being impressed. And I have always had an ambivalent feeling about that, because on the one hand, it is only fair to recognize the efforts of the men and some women also that sacrificed themselves over there. And I by no means would want to underestimate the importance and the valor of everybody involved, as well as the planning of the operation. A big bravo is indeed due. So I have no problem with honoring the men and women that were involved in this operation. And I certainly wouldn't recognize that it ended up the landings in Normandy did make a contribution to the victory by a coalition of countries that all needed to put in a very, very big effort to defeat that huge military monster that Nazi Germany happened to be. Because there's no doubt about that in the early 40s, and from 1939 on to 1944, approximately, Nazi Germany was the biggest, the most powerful military machine in the world. And to defeat that machine took an effort by all the allies, every little effort counted. So there's no way that we can or should possibly underestimate what happened. Having said that, it's also sad, I found, as the other side of the coin, that these celebrations have been manipulated, I should say, by the powers that be that organized them, and that are basically providing the big speakers over there, you know, to minimize, if not obfuscate, the efforts of the most important of all the members of the coalition, which was the Soviet Union, and of which, of course, Russia is today the successor country. And it is undoubtedly the case, as I as an historian have learned over the years, having been brought up in a country, Belgium, where we also believe that the landings
Counterpunch, 2024
An interpretation of the Paris 2024 Olympics as a case of "celebration capitalism" in the context... more An interpretation of the Paris 2024 Olympics as a case of "celebration capitalism" in the context of the historical "bourgeoisification" of the French capital, Paris, presumably completed in 1889 with the construction of a phallic symbol, the Eiffel Tower.
Global Research , 2024
An interpretation of Nazi Germany's 1941 attack on the Soviet Union, its fiasco, and consequences.
Les 7 du Quebec, 2024
1°)-Présentation Brigitte Bouzonnie : Cet article rédigé par l'historien Jacques Pauwels sur la g... more 1°)-Présentation Brigitte Bouzonnie : Cet article rédigé par l'historien Jacques Pauwels sur la guerre à l'Est (opération Barbarossa), déclarée le 22 juin 1941 par Hitler, est certainement ce que j'ai lu de mieux sur le sujet. Et j'en ai lu un paquet. J. Pauwels insiste tout particulièrement sur la défaite de la Wermacht devant Moscou à la fin de l'année 1941. Défaite constituant le véritable tournant de la seconde guerre mondiale selon lui. Et non pas suite à la bataille de Stalingrad (juillet 1942-Janvier 1943), comme nous le répétons en toute naïveté. En effet, le 5 décembre 1941, les soviétiques réussissent à lancer une contre offensive en direction de l'armée allemande, épuisée par six mois de guerre intense. C'est le début de la fin pour la Wermacht…. 2°)-Article Jacques Pauwels : Une guerrre contre l'Union soviétique était ce que Hitler avait voulu depuis le début. Il l'avait déjà dit très clairement dans les pages de Mein Kampf, écrit au milieu des années 1920. Comme l'historien allemand Rolf-Dieter Müller l'a démontré de manière convaincante dans une étude bien documentée, c'était une guerre contre l'Union soviétique, et non contre la Pologne, la France ou la Grande-Bretagne, que Hitler prévoyait de déclencher en 1939. Le 11 août de la même année, Hitler expliqua à Carl J. Burckhardt, un responsable de la Société des Nations, que « tout ce qu'il entreprenait était dirigé contre la Russie », et que « si l'Occident [c'est-à-dire les Français et les Britanniques] était trop stupide et trop aveugle pour comprendre cela, il serait obligé de parvenir à un accord avec les Russes, se retourner et vaincre l'Occident, puis revenir en arrière de toutes ses forces pour frapper un coup contre l'Union soviétique ». C'est en fait ce qui s'est passé. L'Occident s'est avéré « trop stupide et aveugle », comme Hitler le voyait, pour lui donner « les mains libres » à l'Est, alors il a conclu un accord avec Moscou-le tristement célèbre « Pacte Hitler-Staline »-puis a déclenché la guerre contre la
Global Research, 2024
My reflections on D-Day, the Battle of Normandy, and the (pseudo-)liberation of France.
March 4, 2024
Reflections on the origins of the Marshall Plan in France.
Journal of labor and society, Jun 1, 2018
Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 1985
... 11 Rugman, Multinationals in Canada: Theory, Performance, and Economic Impact (1980) at 127; ... more ... 11 Rugman, Multinationals in Canada: Theory, Performance, and Economic Impact (1980) at 127; see also Munton & Poel, "Electoral Accountability and Canadian Foreign Policy: the Case of Foreign Investment" (1977-78) 33 Int'l J. I at 222ff. ... 35 Rugman, supra note 11 at 129. ...
The American Historical Review, Oct 1, 1985
Journal of labor and society, Aug 23, 2020
This essay provides a class‐analysis interpretation of France's role in World War II. Det... more This essay provides a class‐analysis interpretation of France's role in World War II. Determined to eliminate the perceived revolutionary threat emanating from its restless working class, France's elite arranged in 1940 for the country to be defeated by its “external enemy,” Nazi Germany. The fruit of that betrayal was a victory over its “internal enemy,” the working class. It permitted installing a fascist regime under Pétain, and this “Vichy‐France”—like Nazi Germany—was a paradise for the industrialists and all other members of the upper class, but a hell for workers and other plebeians. Unsurprisingly, the Resistance was mostly working‐class, and its plans for postwar France included severe punishment for the collaborators and very radical reforms. After Stalingrad, the elite, desperate to avoid that fate, switched its loyalty to the country's future American masters, who were determined to make France and the rest of Europe free for capitalism. It proved necessary, however, to allow the recalcitrant leader of the conservative Resistance, Charles de Gaulle, to come to power. In any event, the “Gaullist” compromise made it possible for the French upper class to escape punishment for its pro‐Nazi sins and to maintain its power and privileges after the liberation.
The Journal of Higher Education, Nov 1, 1986
Journal of labor and society, Aug 31, 2017
Interchange, Sep 1, 1989
Paulo Freire: Dialogue and Anti-Dialogical Action What distinguishes human beings from animals, i... more Paulo Freire: Dialogue and Anti-Dialogical Action What distinguishes human beings from animals, in Paulo Freire's view, is the ability to combine reflection andaction, the "praxis" as he calls it, which enables men and women to transform the world in which they live. In the Freirean scheme of things, reflection is a precondition for action, and a form of action itself: "naming the world" engaging in a dialogue about the world, is a precondition for changing it (Freire, 1983, espec, pp. 119, 123). From such premises it follows logically that those who do not want to see change in the world, that is, in their world or in the society which they dominate and from which they profit, do not want the world to be "named"; in particular, they abhor the thought that those whom they dominate and from whose labour they profit the "oppressed" of the title of Freire's book -might engage in a Freirean "dialogue" about their world. Conversely, the oppressed do have an interest in naming the world, because a genuine kind of dialogue about the world entails action and therefore holds the promise of change and of liberation from their oppression. Wherever oppression exists, then, the oppressor s try with all means at their disposal to prevent the oppressed from engaging in a genuine dialogue. And one of those means is the use (or abuse) of language by the oppressors on behalf of the system from which they profit. By manipulating language as a tool of oppression, the oppressors seek to silence the people, to prevent a dialogue of the oppressed. In the fictitious totalitarian society described by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four, dissent and opposition are thus virtually eradicated by means of a new kind of language, "Newspeak:' In the real world, too, language can function as a potent anti-dialogical weapon, and all too often it amounts to the cornerstone of what Fre~re calls the "culture of silence:' While Latin America is the oppressed world Freire has in mind, it can be argued that a culture of silence also serves to obfuscate -and thus to preserve -the admittedly less crude but no less real forms of oppression which are a feature of the capitalist system of the northern half Of the American continent and, for that matter, of the entire "'liberal" "democratic" "western" world. Even in countries such as Canada and the United States, vast masses of people who may be described as oppressed -the poor, women, native people, Blacks, migrant workers, etc. -are prevented by their oppressors from naming the world, from using language for the purpose of engaging in a Freirean dialogue, because that might some day inspire them to try to change that world. Anti-dialogical action in general, and anti-dialogical manipulation of language in particular, are features not only of far away Latin American "banana republics" but also of our own North American world and "western" society. And subtle but real -as opposed to purely fictitious -forms of Orwellian Newspeak should not only be associated, as they usually are, with "totalitarian"
Investig'Action, 2024
La Tour Eiffel a été sans aucun doute le point central et la superstar des récents Jeux Olympique... more La Tour Eiffel a été sans aucun doute le point central et la superstar des récents Jeux Olympiques de Paris. C'est compréhensible, puisque le chef-d'oeuvre de Gustave Eiffel est l'emblème de la ville depuis longtemps. Cependant, la tour est aussi un symbole de la richesse et du pouvoir de la bourgeoisie, de la « classe capitaliste », un patriciat dont les rangs exclusifs comprennent également les dames et les messieurs du Comité international olympique (CIO). Un soupçon d'histoire peut nous aider à comprendre la centralité de la tour dans le récent spectacle olympique dans la « ville lumière ».
Global Research, 2024
, the leaders of North America and Western Europe flocked to the beaches of Normandy, France to p... more , the leaders of North America and Western Europe flocked to the beaches of Normandy, France to pay tribute to the historic battle fought between the allied forces and the Nazis for control of France and to eventually overthrow the Nazis. This battle took its toll, but the Allies emerged victorious. However, at the ceremonies, no mention whatsoever was extended to the role of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, in which the casualty rate was far greater, the Nazi presence far greater, and the victory a key to the success in the West. In fact, the only reference to Russia was in State leader's speeches equating Vladmir Putin to the next Adolf Hitler! The facts of the defeat of Germany mainly at the hands of the Soviet Union are laid out in a conversation with Canadian-Belgian historian Jacques Pauwels in the recent episode of the Global Research News Hour. Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, is a renowned author, historian and political scientist, Research associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. His books include The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War (second edition, 2015), Big Business and Hitler (2017), and Myths of Modern History: From the French Revolution to the 20th century world wars and the Cold War-new perspectives on key events (2022). The following incisive interview with Michael Welch was recorded on June 25, 2024. Global Research: You must have caught some of the footage of earlier this month of D-Day. What struck you most about what was said and what was not said during the day of festivities 80 years later? Jacques Pauwels: Well, Michael, I've been to Normandy quite a few times. And I've actually was there in 1995. And it was then the 40th, the 50th anniversary of the landings in Normandy. And it's quite, of course, a moving experience to be there as all these World War commemorations tend to be. One cannot help being impressed. And I have always had an ambivalent feeling about that, because on the one hand, it is only fair to recognize the efforts of the men and some women also that sacrificed themselves over there. And I by no means would want to underestimate the importance and the valor of everybody involved, as well as the planning of the operation. A big bravo is indeed due. So I have no problem with honoring the men and women that were involved in this operation. And I certainly wouldn't recognize that it ended up the landings in Normandy did make a contribution to the victory by a coalition of countries that all needed to put in a very, very big effort to defeat that huge military monster that Nazi Germany happened to be. Because there's no doubt about that in the early 40s, and from 1939 on to 1944, approximately, Nazi Germany was the biggest, the most powerful military machine in the world. And to defeat that machine took an effort by all the allies, every little effort counted. So there's no way that we can or should possibly underestimate what happened. Having said that, it's also sad, I found, as the other side of the coin, that these celebrations have been manipulated, I should say, by the powers that be that organized them, and that are basically providing the big speakers over there, you know, to minimize, if not obfuscate, the efforts of the most important of all the members of the coalition, which was the Soviet Union, and of which, of course, Russia is today the successor country. And it is undoubtedly the case, as I as an historian have learned over the years, having been brought up in a country, Belgium, where we also believe that the landings
Counterpunch, 2024
An interpretation of the Paris 2024 Olympics as a case of "celebration capitalism" in the context... more An interpretation of the Paris 2024 Olympics as a case of "celebration capitalism" in the context of the historical "bourgeoisification" of the French capital, Paris, presumably completed in 1889 with the construction of a phallic symbol, the Eiffel Tower.
Global Research , 2024
An interpretation of Nazi Germany's 1941 attack on the Soviet Union, its fiasco, and consequences.
Les 7 du Quebec, 2024
1°)-Présentation Brigitte Bouzonnie : Cet article rédigé par l'historien Jacques Pauwels sur la g... more 1°)-Présentation Brigitte Bouzonnie : Cet article rédigé par l'historien Jacques Pauwels sur la guerre à l'Est (opération Barbarossa), déclarée le 22 juin 1941 par Hitler, est certainement ce que j'ai lu de mieux sur le sujet. Et j'en ai lu un paquet. J. Pauwels insiste tout particulièrement sur la défaite de la Wermacht devant Moscou à la fin de l'année 1941. Défaite constituant le véritable tournant de la seconde guerre mondiale selon lui. Et non pas suite à la bataille de Stalingrad (juillet 1942-Janvier 1943), comme nous le répétons en toute naïveté. En effet, le 5 décembre 1941, les soviétiques réussissent à lancer une contre offensive en direction de l'armée allemande, épuisée par six mois de guerre intense. C'est le début de la fin pour la Wermacht…. 2°)-Article Jacques Pauwels : Une guerrre contre l'Union soviétique était ce que Hitler avait voulu depuis le début. Il l'avait déjà dit très clairement dans les pages de Mein Kampf, écrit au milieu des années 1920. Comme l'historien allemand Rolf-Dieter Müller l'a démontré de manière convaincante dans une étude bien documentée, c'était une guerre contre l'Union soviétique, et non contre la Pologne, la France ou la Grande-Bretagne, que Hitler prévoyait de déclencher en 1939. Le 11 août de la même année, Hitler expliqua à Carl J. Burckhardt, un responsable de la Société des Nations, que « tout ce qu'il entreprenait était dirigé contre la Russie », et que « si l'Occident [c'est-à-dire les Français et les Britanniques] était trop stupide et trop aveugle pour comprendre cela, il serait obligé de parvenir à un accord avec les Russes, se retourner et vaincre l'Occident, puis revenir en arrière de toutes ses forces pour frapper un coup contre l'Union soviétique ». C'est en fait ce qui s'est passé. L'Occident s'est avéré « trop stupide et aveugle », comme Hitler le voyait, pour lui donner « les mains libres » à l'Est, alors il a conclu un accord avec Moscou-le tristement célèbre « Pacte Hitler-Staline »-puis a déclenché la guerre contre la
Global Research, 2024
My reflections on D-Day, the Battle of Normandy, and the (pseudo-)liberation of France.
March 4, 2024
Reflections on the origins of the Marshall Plan in France.
Journal of labor and society, Jun 1, 2018
Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 1985
... 11 Rugman, Multinationals in Canada: Theory, Performance, and Economic Impact (1980) at 127; ... more ... 11 Rugman, Multinationals in Canada: Theory, Performance, and Economic Impact (1980) at 127; see also Munton & Poel, "Electoral Accountability and Canadian Foreign Policy: the Case of Foreign Investment" (1977-78) 33 Int'l J. I at 222ff. ... 35 Rugman, supra note 11 at 129. ...
The American Historical Review, Oct 1, 1985
Journal of labor and society, Aug 23, 2020
This essay provides a class‐analysis interpretation of France's role in World War II. Det... more This essay provides a class‐analysis interpretation of France's role in World War II. Determined to eliminate the perceived revolutionary threat emanating from its restless working class, France's elite arranged in 1940 for the country to be defeated by its “external enemy,” Nazi Germany. The fruit of that betrayal was a victory over its “internal enemy,” the working class. It permitted installing a fascist regime under Pétain, and this “Vichy‐France”—like Nazi Germany—was a paradise for the industrialists and all other members of the upper class, but a hell for workers and other plebeians. Unsurprisingly, the Resistance was mostly working‐class, and its plans for postwar France included severe punishment for the collaborators and very radical reforms. After Stalingrad, the elite, desperate to avoid that fate, switched its loyalty to the country's future American masters, who were determined to make France and the rest of Europe free for capitalism. It proved necessary, however, to allow the recalcitrant leader of the conservative Resistance, Charles de Gaulle, to come to power. In any event, the “Gaullist” compromise made it possible for the French upper class to escape punishment for its pro‐Nazi sins and to maintain its power and privileges after the liberation.
The Journal of Higher Education, Nov 1, 1986
Journal of labor and society, Aug 31, 2017
Interchange, Sep 1, 1989
Paulo Freire: Dialogue and Anti-Dialogical Action What distinguishes human beings from animals, i... more Paulo Freire: Dialogue and Anti-Dialogical Action What distinguishes human beings from animals, in Paulo Freire's view, is the ability to combine reflection andaction, the "praxis" as he calls it, which enables men and women to transform the world in which they live. In the Freirean scheme of things, reflection is a precondition for action, and a form of action itself: "naming the world" engaging in a dialogue about the world, is a precondition for changing it (Freire, 1983, espec, pp. 119, 123). From such premises it follows logically that those who do not want to see change in the world, that is, in their world or in the society which they dominate and from which they profit, do not want the world to be "named"; in particular, they abhor the thought that those whom they dominate and from whose labour they profit the "oppressed" of the title of Freire's book -might engage in a Freirean "dialogue" about their world. Conversely, the oppressed do have an interest in naming the world, because a genuine kind of dialogue about the world entails action and therefore holds the promise of change and of liberation from their oppression. Wherever oppression exists, then, the oppressor s try with all means at their disposal to prevent the oppressed from engaging in a genuine dialogue. And one of those means is the use (or abuse) of language by the oppressors on behalf of the system from which they profit. By manipulating language as a tool of oppression, the oppressors seek to silence the people, to prevent a dialogue of the oppressed. In the fictitious totalitarian society described by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four, dissent and opposition are thus virtually eradicated by means of a new kind of language, "Newspeak:' In the real world, too, language can function as a potent anti-dialogical weapon, and all too often it amounts to the cornerstone of what Fre~re calls the "culture of silence:' While Latin America is the oppressed world Freire has in mind, it can be argued that a culture of silence also serves to obfuscate -and thus to preserve -the admittedly less crude but no less real forms of oppression which are a feature of the capitalist system of the northern half Of the American continent and, for that matter, of the entire "'liberal" "democratic" "western" world. Even in countries such as Canada and the United States, vast masses of people who may be described as oppressed -the poor, women, native people, Blacks, migrant workers, etc. -are prevented by their oppressors from naming the world, from using language for the purpose of engaging in a Freirean dialogue, because that might some day inspire them to try to change that world. Anti-dialogical action in general, and anti-dialogical manipulation of language in particular, are features not only of far away Latin American "banana republics" but also of our own North American world and "western" society. And subtle but real -as opposed to purely fictitious -forms of Orwellian Newspeak should not only be associated, as they usually are, with "totalitarian"
La guerra puede utilizarse como instrumento para el retorno de formas de dominación política ya s... more La guerra puede utilizarse como instrumento para el retorno de formas de dominación política ya superadas, como medio para sostener la ilusión de que la explotación capitalista es la única alternativa de la humanidad. En el mundo de hoy, los conflictos entre las potencias que se disputan grandes áreas y regiones del planeta, son también batallas entre el pasado y el presente y al igual que a inicios del siglo XX las cabezas coronadas y los magnates del capital ven que su interés de disciplinar a los trabajadores y limitar sus conquistas democráticas coincide con la necesidad de expansión de sus imperios económicos y territoriales. En "La Gran Guerra de Clases 1914-1918", Jacques Pauwels examina a la Primera Guerra Mundial o "Gran Guerra", como se la llamó entonces, como un esfuerzo de las clases dominantes que deseaban que la rueda de la historia retroceda a la época anterior a 1789. "La Gran Guerra de Clases 1914-1918" es un texto de conocimiento y cultura general que ofrece un versátil recuento de las fuerzas motrices que condujeron al estallido de la Primera Guerra Mundial, las consecuencias que ésta tuvo y su legado para nuestros días.
The First World War was not an accident of history. It was expected, wanted, and ultimately unlea... more The First World War was not an accident of history. It was expected, wanted, and ultimately unleashed by the European elite, a combination of the "agrarian" aristocracy and the "industrial and financial" bourgeoisie. These gentlemen hoped that war would exorcise the spectre of revolution, make it possible to arrest and even reverse the ongoing democratization process, and bring rich "imperialist" rewards in the shape of territories, overseas but also within Europe, that would serve as sources of rare raw materials (such as Mesopotamian oil) and cheap labour, as monopolized markets, and as eldorados of investment opportunities. The Great War was intended as a kind of "great leap backward," it was a war not for, but against, democracy. It is an irony of history, however, that this war it ended up producing the oppositie of what had been intended: a major revolution in Russia, and - in much of Western Europe - major democratic reforms, reluctantly introduced by the elites in order to avoid revolutions.
Leerde u op school ook dat de Eerste Wereldoorlog een oorlog voor de democratie was? Nochtans bes... more Leerde u op school ook dat de Eerste Wereldoorlog een oorlog voor de democratie was? Nochtans bestond in het Europa van 1914 niet eens algemeen stemrecht. Overal heerste een kleine elite van grootgrondbezittende adel en industriële burgerij. Die eerste klasse monopoliseerde de politieke, de tweede de economische macht. Maar beide deden het in hun broek voor 'de volksmassa's' en het spook van de revolutie dat hen overal volgde.
De analyse van Jacques Pauwels is onthutsend. Om een omverwerping van de heersende orde te vermijden, kwamen adel en burgerij terecht bij oorlog. Oorlog moest de revolutie en de democratisering tegenhouden. Oorlog kon ook de economische problemen oplossen die het gevolg waren van de onderlinge concurrentie tussen de grootmachten, die altijd op zoek waren naar territoriale uitbreiding voor het verwerven van afzetmarkten, bronnen van grondstoffen en goedkope arbeidskrachten.
Maar het draaide anders uit dan de elite verwacht had. In Rusland lukte de revolutie, in West-Europa waren hervormingen ten voordele van de kleine man onvermijdelijk, en in de rest van de wereld staken antikoloniale bewegingen de kop op. Toch bleef de elite dromen van een terugkeer naar de 'goede oude tijd'. Dat ontaardde in de nachtmerrie van het fascisme en een nieuwe wereldoorlog.
De Groote Oorlog zoals u hem nog nooit bekeken had.
A brief review of five books by French historian Annie Lacroix-Riz: Le choix de la Défa... more A brief review of five books by French historian Annie Lacroix-Riz:
Le choix de la Défaite: Les élites françaises dans les années 1930 – By Annie Lacroix-Riz;
De Munich à Vichy: L'assassinat de la 3e République 1938–1940 – By Annie Lacroix-Riz;
Industriels et banquiers sous l'Occupation – By Annie Lacroix-Riz;
Aux origines du carcan européen (1900–1960): La France sous influence allemande et américaine – By Annie Lacroix-Riz;
Les Élites françaises entre 1940 et 1944 – By Annie Lacroix-Riz