CORPUS : documents 61 à 70

DOCUMENT 61

NOTE DE GASTON HENRY-HAYE AU MINISTERE DES AFFAIRES ETRANGERES

25 septembre 1942

 

Dactylographie

 

 

TRANSCRIPTION


              Washington, le 25 septembre 1942

 

DIPLOMATIE – VICHY

 

N° 3509

 

M. de Bisschop, ancien Agent consulaire
aux Iles Hawai, dont le Département d’Etat a retiré
l’exequatur le 13 décembre 1941, exprime le désir de
rentrer en France. A cet effet, il serait très
reconnaissant à Votre Excellence de vouloir bien lui
faire savoir si ses services pourraient être utilement
employés en France ou en Afrique du Nord.

Prière de communiquer au Cabinet du
Chef de l’Etat./.

 

                                               HENRI-HAYES (sic)


DOCUMENT 62

NOTE DE GASTON HENRY-HAYE A YVES MERIC DE BELLEFON

28 septembre 1942

 

Dactylographie

 

 

TRANSCRIPTION

                                                                                                          28 septembre 1942

 

 

 

0   97

      

avion

 

 

L’AMBASSADEUR DE FRANCE AUX ETATS-UNIS
A MONSIEUR DE BELLEFON, MINISTRE PLENIPOTENTIAIRE
CHARGE DU CONSULAT GENERAL DE France A SANS (sic)

FRANCISCO

 

 

Je vous adresse sous ce pli un chèque de
$200. – dont vous voudrez bien transmettre le
montant à M. de Bisschop.

Cette somme correspond à l’indemnité
de septembre, soit $50.—et à celle des trois
mois pendant lesquels elle n’a pas été versée,
soit $150.—

Conformément aux règlements en vigueur
le département d’Etat a été informé de ces paie-
ments ./.


DOCUMENT 63

LETTRE D’ERIC DE BISSCHOP A GASTON HENRY-HAYE°

7 octobre 1942

 

Dactylographie

 

 

TRANSCRIPTION


(tampon)

Amb Fr

OCT 21 1942.

 

AGENCE CONSULAIRE DE FRANCE

Honolulu

Territory of Hawaii

U.S.A.

 

                                                                       7 Octobre 1942

(Chiffre de la date corrigé manuellement en 4)

 

 

Son Excellence G. Henry-Haye

Ambassadeur de France

Washington.

 

Monsieur l’Ambassadeur,

 

Je me permets de vous envoyer ci-joints quelques
nouveaux articles « à la défense du Maréchal » que ma femme
a fait paraître dans la Presse locale.
Elle avait promis, si vous vous souvenez, lors de ma malheu-
reuse affaire, alors qu’on lui reprochait, étant Américaine,
de défendre la cause d’un Pays étranger, de continuer,
dût elle être aussi « mise en prison », ses protestations
contre toute insulte portée par la propagande à la personne
du Maréchal… elle a simplement tenu parole.

 

J’attends avec impatience la conseil que vous pourriez
me donner au sujet de ce nouveau « cap » (pour parler marin)
à prendre par nous sur l’Océan tourmenté des événements
actuels… Pacifique (Wallis, si encore possible), France.. ou
ailleurs ; le point primordial est, quelque (sic) soit le lieu,
j’y puisse y avoir la joie de servir utilement mon Pays.

 

Veuillez être assuré, Monsieur l’Ambassadeur, de nos
sentiments respectueux et les plus dévoués.

 

(Signature manuscrite)                      E de Bisschop

 

P.S. A la suite des articles ci joints, ma femme reçut un
nombre étonnant d’appels téléphoniques et de lettres la
félicitant ; L’une de ces lettres nous permit de faire la
connaissance d’un officier supérieur de la Marine Américai-
ne, grand ami de la France Captain J.M. Shoemaker (ci-joint
copie de sa lettre)

Je me permets d’encore vous communiquer une nouvelle
adresse de ma femme à Monsieur Sumner Welles. Elle a cru
pouvoir la rédiger sur un ton assez.. badin, espérant ainsi
le distraire de l’habituelle formule officielle, et retenir
ainsi son attention. Vous restez naturellement seul juge
de l’opportunité de la remise de cette lettre. J’ose,
cependant, espérer un semblant de reconnaissance officielle
de la regrettable erreur dont je fus et reste la victime…
ce serait parfaitement un geste américain, d’allure « sportive »
et de « fair play ».

 

(Manuscrit)                                                                 E B

 

Pièces jointes 2 articles journaux

              1 copie lettre


DOCUMENT 64

COUPURE DE PRESSE

28 août 1942

 

THE HONOLULU ADVERTISER

Hawaii’s Territorial Newspaper

 

Une colonne.

 

TRANSCRIPTION

 

LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE

Chapeau de la rubrique (précautions éditoriales)

 

OUR APOLOGIES EXTENDED, CONSTANCE

Editor The Advertiser:

Your editorial this morning on Petain shows implicit belief in that news item appearing Monday, entitled, “Petain, Laval Hail Victory by Germans.” Farther along in this item we find that this startling information is “according to the text of a Nazi-controlled Paris radio broadcast.” Everyone knows, or should, that the Nazis’ greatest desire is to effect a break between the France of the Marechal Petain and the United States. They seem to be succeeding very well, for when American newspapers spread in large headlines the texts of their broadcasts they unwittingly become Nazi accomplices. How Berlin must laugh.

Nothing has so far been able to break America’s traditional friendship for France. It is being tried, clumsily perhaps, but at least with persistence.

First, we heard, the still powerful French fleet was to be turned over to Hitler; then Dakar made its bow in glaring headlines, etcetera, etcetera. None of these threats have materialized. Can it be that the Marechal is not the puppet he is presented as to the eyes of the American public?

The arrival of Laval into power seemed to certain ones the much hoped for cause for the desired rupture in diplomatic relations between France and America.

But what do we read lately? – Laval has found disfavor in Nazi eyes and may be replaced by that pro-Nazi-Fascist Doriot.

Cannot we in America realize, once and for all, that as long as Petain is chief of state, no matter who the members of his government (imposed or not) may be, France shall always follow a policy uniquely French, not pro-anything. A policy honest and upright.

Petain has never been a politician. He had already reached the pinnacle of honor and fame before France’s disaster. He took upon his old shoulders the heavy task of raising her from ruins. His spotless prestige saved his country from revolution. The faith of the French people in him is based on gratefulness and veneration. The courageous soldier, hero of Verdun, can never be considered by any, save those blinded by passion or self-interest, as a “traitor” or a “corrupt” man. His entire life has been one of duty and sacrifice. The 86 years weigh no heavier upon his shoulders nor impede him any more than the youth of Jeanne D’Arc impeded her. Both are and have been sustained by an ideal. The old soldier shall deliver France, as did the young girl, from the enemy’s boot.

To those unable to free themselves from the poison of propaganda, and believe, perhaps, that my personal contact with the Marechal blinds me, I can only repeat the judgment of that great American ambassador to Vichy, just returned – Admiral Leahy. At least one can’t suspect him of being an instrument of the Nazis.

“I have the greatest admiration,” he announced at a recent press conference, “for the Marechal Petain.” And farther, “the people of France are overwhelmingly pro-American.”

It is not like American sportsmanship to hit an old friend (France) when she’s on her knees. Neither is it AmerIcan to spread enemy propaganda.

May everyone eventually come to believe as Admiral Leahy.

Aug. 25.                                    CONSTANCE DE BISSCHOP


DOCUMENT 65

COUPURE DE PRESSE

7 septembre 1942

 

 

THE HONOLULU ADVERTISER

 

Deux colonnes.

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPTION

 

 

AN ANSWER TO YOURS FOR JUSTICE

Editor The Advertiser:

Regarding the letter appearing in Saturday morning’s Advertiser, signed “Yours For Justice.”

I really cannot understand how anyone can be so little as to take up his pen for the sole purpose of trying to besmirch another’s good name without being sure of the truth of his attack. And when, in such a serious matter, that person resorts to the protection of a “nom de plume”, the inevitable conclusion is, that he has not the courage of his own convictions. After all anyone upholding justice should have no fear of making his name public.

It would be interesting to discover from what source comes this information presented as fact.

According to “Yours For Justice”: “Churchill asked Petain one thing, the most reasonable request surely, namely that the 600 or so airmen shot down, largely by the British, and imprisoned in France, should be turned over to the British for transfer to England – Petain gave his personal word to Churchill that this should be done; shortly thereafter he released these airmen to the Germans to continue their work of destruction.”

This knowledge of history (for this has become history) seems a little confused. I refuse to commence any “polemique” here, “polemique” into which I suspect, “Yours For Justice,” would like to force me and which does not directly concern America in this Petain-Churchill discussion.

However, urged by the same spirit which would permit my signing, “Yours For Truth,” I feel that I can help to enlighten our anonymous correspondent, since I was in France at the epoque in question, and very close to events then taking place.

Allow me to present a few facts concerning this so-called interview of Petain-Churchill, the promises made then and kept, with dates to prove them.

On June 3. 1940, the last English soldier, protected by the French army, withdrew from the soil of France. The tragedy of Dunkirk, scene of the first “glorious withdrawal” (quote Churchill) of the present war, was over. The 13th of June, the German hordes were at the gates of Paris! The situation was desperate. Churchill, accompanied by Lords Halifax and Beaverbrook, flew to Tours to meet Renaud[1] – not Petain, for Renaud was then still head of the government. (Petain only became chief of state 4 days later; he therefore had neither the power nor the right at that time to make any agreement with Churchill, in the name of France.)

Churchill had, however, a demand more important to his eyes, than the sending of the 600 German airmen to England. A demand more logical too, for if you reflect well, you will realize how extraordinary it would have been for France, conquered, to ask her conquerors to please allow her to turn these German aviators over to the English, especially since they had been one of the main causes of Germany’s smashing victory. This interview Churchill- Renaud on June 13th is historic. I regret that the official report is not better known in America.

What Churchill went to ask Renaud was, that in case France was trapped into an armistice, “in no case would the French fleet be placed at the disposal of Germany and Italy.” On the 17th June Britain was informed of the intended demand for armistice. On June 19, Alexander, first Lord of British Admiralty (not Churchill) flew to Bordeaux to meet the Marechal and there made the same demand concerning the fleet. Petain at this time chief of state could then speak in behalf of France. The Marechal assured Alexander that he would only sign the armistice if the fleet could remain French. He knew that he could hope for a concession by the enemy to this astonishing request since the fleet itself had not been vanquished!

This promise he has kept among others; According to the termes of the armistice, effective June 24, France was “allowed to keep all her navy; the ships would be disarmed except those to be used to protect her colonies.” Since then, months and even years have passed, and, in spite of provocation; of lies; in spite of shameful intrigue and egoistic politics, the fleet, the whole fleet, remains French.

I can give other proof that the Marechal, “hideous old traitor” of “Yours For Justice,” has kept his word while to help him many Frenchmen have gladly given their lives and men, women and children are now dying of hunger. But to explain this I should have to tread on ground too delicate for the moment.

As for the assertion that the 600 German airmen were shot down largely by the British (in large print) I remember hearing the accounts of a great many officers participating in that terrible withdrawal from Flanders. None could remember having seen anything in the sky save thousands[2] of Goering’s planes. Where were those of the Allies?

The French government, just before the war, believed it could sell the greatest part of France’s best planes to Republican Spain for her civil war, confident that Staline’s aviation, in case of hostilities with Germany, would range itself with France. Unhappily Staline changed his mind!

England, on her side, perhaps foreseeing the disaster, and the hard days to come, felt she should keep nine-tenths of her aviation at home.

The German aviators, in a sky of which they were comp(l)ete masters, flew so low, that the greatest number were brought down, not big[3] planes, but by the Allied troops in retreat... with guns and machine guns. But since the British had only 10 divisions in France, and the French had 91 divisions in this sector, we can only infer that the statement of “Yours For Justice” was meant to be a little insinuating.

In conclusion, “Yours For Justice”, although you do not hold the same opinion as our Ambassador Admiral Leahy, who is certainly much better inflormed concerning the French chief of state than you, and who could hardly express “greatest admiration for the Marechal Petain” unless he had good reason, please at least be kind enough to refrain from insulting a man of whom not only France, but all humanity can be proud.

For you can only see him through a fog of propaganda.

                                                             CONSTANCE DE BISSCHOP

Sept. 7.


DOCUMENT 66

LETTRE DE J.M. SHOEMAKER A CONSTANCE DE BISSCHOP°

Non datée (vers le 10 septembre 1942)

 

Dactylographie

 

 

TRANSCRIPTION

COPIE

 

                       

                                               United States Pacific Fleet

                                               U.S. NAVAL AIR FORCES,   PACIFIC FLEET.

 

 

                                                                       Box 1352

                                                                       Naval Air Station

                                                                       Pearl harbor.

 

Dear Madame de Bisschop,

Your published letter in yesterday’s “ADVERTISER”
gave me a great pleasure, for I, too, am a devoted admirer
of the Marechal Petain. And I had the great honor of
meeting him informally, on several occasions, during my
three years at our Embassy in Paris.

If I may make so bold, I should like very much to
present my respects to Mr de Bisschop and yourself, any
afternoon, at your convenience.

My purpose in suggesting this is thoroughly selfish.
I long to talk again about France. And as I am told
that M. De Bisschop was a French naval officier, I am sure
we have many mutual friends.

                                                           Very sincerely yours

                                               James Marshall Shoemaker

                                                           Captain, U.S. Navy.

 

 

(Notes manuscrites d’Eric de Bisschop)

 

(Rencontra le Maréchal à Chantilly ch une
amie commune marquise de
Chasseloup Laubat [*]
(Est très intime avec l’Amiral Batet (de
l’Emile Bertin) actuellement à Toulon, je crois.
(Connaît aussi Auboyneau, le « free » french amiral
de Londres

 

                                        EdB

 


* : la lecture précédente Craneloup d'Aubert était erronée (dans l'original, ce passage superpose une écriture au crayon de bois et une écriture à l'encre, d'où des problèmes de déchiffrement)


DOCUMENT 67

LETTRE DE CONSTANCE DE BISSCHOP A SUMNER WELLES

6 octobre 1942

 

Lettre manuscrite

 

 

TRANSCRIPTION

 

                                                 Oct 6, 1942

 

My dear Mr Sumner Welles

                          Since I last wrote you,
many months have passed. During that time,
we have had to endure a painful experience,
experience which we hope was a necessary evil,
to be born in order that my husband be reinstated
as French Consular Agent here.

On May 22, our home (that of my parents) was
entered at the unealthy hour of 6 a. m. by the
military intelligence armed with a search warrant.

Now that these months have passed, the healing
hand of time permits me to recall that horrible day
with a touch of amusement.

To say that the men in the Intelligence were
thorough would be putting it mildly ! Under their
busily exploring fingers, articles came to light which
we had believed lost for years. Nothing daunted them,
not even a packet of love letters written thirty nine
years ago by my father and carefully treasured by
mother. Into these turbulent waters of Love, they
done exuberantly, and, where others would have sunk,
they emerged refreshed and still exuberant, onto the
solid ground of 1942.

A letter from Admiral Nimitz to my husband
thanking him for a plan for an impregnable convoy
system, submitted by him, caused a slight uncertainty
which was soon forgotten, however, when one of the
men discovered mother’s house money which she
had hidden ages ago and had been hunting
for ever since. This event was the only silver lining.

 

FEUILLET 2


to that miserable day and if we couldn’t
share mother’s hopeful expectancy of future
discoveries, at least we could understand it.

After the house had been searched top to bottom
without a sign of the machines and suspicious
papers supposed concealed there, we were herded
into care and transported to the offices of the Military
Intelligence. There father and mother (both Americans
whose only fault lay in being related to me) were questioned.

Later, we were taken home, minus my husband,
who spent three enlightening days at the Immigration
Station, locked in a cell in chummy intimacy with fifteen
Japanese.

In desperation, I went to the General Emmons to
ask if he knew the reason. His response was that it
was perhaps a general measure to be taken in regard
to all Frenchmen.

Of course, we know the person who gave the supposedly
truthful information concerning us to the Intelligence.
That the war has made people hysterical, we concede,
but how they can go so far as to accuse me of murdering
a French sailor of the warship Triomphant, and my
husband to be the instigator of the December eleventh
attack, is really beyond our poor powers of conception.

Mr Pecker, former consular agent for France here, before
my husband, broke under pressure by this same element
and sent his demission to Washington and Vichy; my
husband preferred to stick, with what result, you already
know.

Now that our innocence has been proven, we wait
daily for some sign that Washington will make just
retribution. Although we do not expect to remain here,
still we feel it (to be) only right that my husband regain

 

FEUILLET 3

 


his former position. Not to be re recognised means
that he is still believed guilty, and leaves us more
off (?) than before.

Our faith in the Maréchal Pétain has never
wavered. If that be a sin, there we are indeed
guilty. So long as he remains Chief of State,
my husband shall be proud to represent France,
regardless of the trials we must endure.

In conclusion, Mr Welles, try to understand
our position. We feel very deeply the slur cast on our
good name. Surely, we have the right to defend
it.

Is it too much to ask that Washington
recognize again my husband as French Consular
Agent here.

 

                                      Thank you.

 

                                      Constance de Bisschop

 

 

 


DOCUMENT 68

LETTRE D’ERIC DE BISSCHOP A GASTON HENRY-HAYE°

7 octobre 1942

 

Dactylographie

 

 

TRANSCRIPTION

(Tampon)

Amb Fr

OCT 21 1942.

 

AGENCE CONSULAIRE DE FRANCE

Honolulu

Territory of Hawaii

U.S.A.

 

(note manuscrite)       M. De Huslaz (???)

                          Prière de m’en parler

 

                                                                                                7 Octobre 1942

 

Son Excellence G. Henry-Haye

Ambassadeur de France

Washington.

 

Monsieur l’Ambassadeur,

Je reçois à l’instant votre lettre par avion du 25
Septembre dont je vous remercie vivement ; Par le même
courrier me parvenait, aussi par avion, une lettre du
Consulat Général de San Francisco, contenant mon indemni-
té du mois de Mai et me confirmant l’arrivée prochaine et
..bienvenue de l’arriéré que vous voulez bien me consen-
tir.

J’attends avec impatience la décision que prendra
à mon sujet le Ministère des Affaires Etrangères à la
suite de votre aimable intervention.

 

Je regrette de voir s’évanouir mon Rêve de Wallis
et Futuna.. La situation spéciale de ces îles, à notre
point de vue colonial, offrait..des possibilités. En effet
la demande d’annexation, faite en 1917, ne fut jamais
ratifiée par le Gouvernement. Les indigènes, dès cette date
cependant, tinrent à payer leurs taxes, en particulier celle
de capitation. Bien qu’administrées par nous, ces commu-
nautés ont encore gardé leurs « rois ». Comme ceux-ci (et
la totalité de leurs sujets) sont de fervents catholiques
l’influence de nos Missionnaires est totale. Il eût été
facile de faire échec à la Dissidence, en provoquant un
plébiscite qui eût été unanime, simplement en montrant
la France du Maréchal grande Amie de l’Eglise, et grande
ennemie des « francs maçons » de Londres. Le principe,
si cher à l’Amérique, du « Droit des Peuples à disposer
d’eux-mêmes » aurait eu toutes les approbations. Wallis et
Futuna auraient pu, au pis aller se déclarer provisoire-
ment indépendant, en attendant des jours meilleurs, et
jouer un rôle intéressant dans la Guerre du Pacifique….

 

Avec l’expression de ma reconnaissance,
je vous prie de croire, Monsieur l’Ambassadeur, en mon
absolu dévouement.

 

 

(Signature manuscrite)          E de Bisschop


DOCUMENT 69

NOTE DE CORDELL HULL A GASTON HENRY-HAYE°

19 octobre 1942

 

Dactylographie

 

 

TRANSCRIPTION

                                                                       (Tampon)

Amb Fr

OCT 20 1942.

 

 

 

 

The Secretary of State presents his compliments to
His Excellency the Ambassador of France and, with refer-
ence to His Excellency’s note, dated September 24, 1941,
with regard further to the registration of Mr. Eric de
Bisschop under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of
1938, as amended, has the honor to inform him that a
copy of the note is being forwarded to the Attorney
General.

 

 

Department of State,

 

Washington.                   October 19, 1942


DOCUMENT 70

LETTRE DE GASTON HENRY-HAYE° A ERIC DE BISSCHOP

28 octobre 1942

 

Copie dactylographiée de la lettre

 

 

TRANSCRIPTION

                                                                                  28 octobre 1942.

 

 

Cher Monsieur de Bisschop,

J’ai bien reçu votre lettre du 7 octobre

J’ai lu avec intérêt les articles que vous y avez
joints, et je vous demande d’exprimer à Mme de Bisschop mon
appréciation pour l’intelligence et le courage avec lesquels
elle défend la personne du Maréchal et l’œuvre qu’il a entre-
prise dans des conditions dont les difficultés échappent trop
souvent à ceux qui la considèrent de loin. J’ai eu plaisir
à retrouver exprimés les mêmes sentiments de confiance dans
la lettre adressée à M. Sumner Welles. Toutefois, la position
prise par le Département d’Etat à l’égard de l’agence consu-
laire de Honolulu m’a été confirmée trop récemment pour qu’une
nouvelle démarche puisse avoir chance de succès.

Je n’ai pas encore reçu de réponse à la requête que
j’ai adressée, par câble, au Département, en demandant qu’elle
soit communiquée au Cabinet du Chef de l’Etat ; mais j’espère,
dans un avenir prochain, pouvoir vous fournir quelques indi-
cations utiles.

Croyez, cher Monsieur de Bisschop, à mes sentiments
les meilleurs./.

 

 

Eric de Bisschop,

158 Dowset Avenue,

Honolulu,

Hawaï

 



[1] Paul Reynaud. Erreur des typographes américains ?

[2] Le texte donne thousaids

[3] Il faut sans doute lire by et non big 





Retour à la page Corpus                                            Retour à l'accueil