Collaboration: A Fair Hearing? PDF Free Download
1 / 2/2
100%
12
Collaboration: A
Fair
Hearing?
Last week,
with
the
publication
of
British
government
archives
...
old stories were retold.
Once
again seductive half-
truths,
distortions
and
stories
of
'Jerrybags'
...
became
ugly full-
blown
lies. The older islanders expected a
more
sympathetic,
accurate
...
account
of
their
ordeal. Instead
they
had
to
suffer
another
bout
of
prurient
sensation-seeking,
and
their
mood
was as
cold
and
bitter
as
the
gales
that
battered
the
islands all week.
The
Sunday
Times,
6 December 1992
Ever since
the
Occupation
began,
there
has
been
a
disproportionate
interest
in
the
extent
of
collaboration
in
the
Islands,
with
accusations first arising
mostly from
within
the
Island
communities,
and
later-
as illustrated
above-
from
Government
and
Press releases
in
mainland
Britain. Books,
published
by
Peter King
and
Madeleine
Bunting
in
1991
and
1995 respectively,
have
only
served
to
intensify
the
controversy. Charges
made
against
the
integrity
of
the
Island officials
have
already
been
largely investigated
in
the
preceding
chapters,
and
discussion
of
their
conduct
will
remain
ongoing
throughout
this study. However,
the
reputation
of
the
general
population
has
also
been
so widely vilified
in
recent years
that
the
purpose
of
this
chapter
will
be
to
examine
different representations
of
their
behaviour, set against a fresh
appraisal
of
what
may
be reasonably
shown
to
have
happened,
as
it
has
been
variously
presented
for public
consumption
over
the
years.
After Liberation,
there
was a general consensus
in
most
early accounts
that
those
engaged
in
some sort
of
collaboration
with
the
enemy
were
only
a small
minority
of
the
population.
In
addition,
not
only
did
early British
Establishment
pronouncements
support
the
integrity
of
responsible Island
administrators,
but
Press reports were also
quite
balanced. For example,
articles dealing
with
Pearl Vardon,
one
of
the
very few
people
accused
of
traitorous actions, also
pointed
out
that
she was
compared
by
the
Lord
Chief Justice
at
her
trial
to
the
'majority
of
...
heroic
Channel
Islanders
163
H. R. K. Smith, The Changing Face of the Channel Islands Occupation
© Hazel R. Knowles Smith 2007
164
The People's Occupation
who
...
put
up
a
magnificent
defence against
the
invader'.1
Ms
Vardon
was
later
sentenced
to
nine
months'
imprisonment
for
making
enemy
broadcasts.
Such
sentiments
were also reflective
of
similar views
which
had
been
published
during
and
immediately
after
the
Occupation. For example,
two
early articles
in
the
Daily Mail
had
quoted
accounts
from
recent
escapers.
On
21
November
1941, a
young
Jersey farmer reported
that
'Channel
Island girls
are giving
the
occupying
German
troops
the
cold
shoulder'
and
on
5
October
1942 a
fisherman-
Mr
Lawrence-
reported: 'At first
the
Germans
tried
to
be
friendly,
but
the
Guernsey
people
had
just
made
up
their
minds
to
ignore
their
existence
...
when
I left
...
the
effort
to
create a friendly
atmosphere
had
been
given
up.'
A later
summary
of
the
general situation, as described
by
'prominent
citizens from Jersey
and
Guernsey', appears
in
the
CIMR
in
September 1944:
'Collaboration
in
so far as it existed, was
purely
a
commer-
cial
matter
conditioned
by
the
necessity
of
keeping
the
economy
...
running
since
the
Germans
had
it
in
their
power
to
starve
the
population
to
death.
But
there
was
no
collaboration [and] discipline was generally
good.'
Similar
articles
appeared
within
other
editions
of
the
Review,
and
in
a
broadcast
made
by
the
BBC
to
the
United
States
on
16
June
1945, Herb
Plambeck-
a
recent
visitor
to
Jersey -stated
that
'During
the
Occupation
...
hatred
for
Nazism was complete.
Only
10%
or
less
of
the
residents are believed
to
have
collaborated
...
[and
the
Islands will]
long
be
remembered
in
history
for
the
brave hearts
of
their
people, so
strong
and
defiant
in
these
...
terrible years.'2
But
around
the
same
time
back
in
the
Islands,
there
was still
'bitter
anger
against
those
who
had
wilfully betrayed
them
...
[and]
many
people
were
determined
...
to
bring
justice
to
those
who
[had]
committed
despicable
acts'.3 Emotions were raw,
and
it
is
not
surprising
that
with
all
their
griev-
ances fresh
in
their
minds,
the
first
phase
of
collective
memory
relating
to
collaboration
was troubled,
even
explosive
at
times, as some
of
those
women
who
had
been
friendly
with
the
Occupier
soon
found
out.
Even as early as
5 September 1944,
Kenneth
Lewis
had
outlined
in
his diary
what
he
under-
stood
the
punishment
of
such
'Jerrybags'
would
be:
that
their
hair
would
be
cut
off,
and
he
recorded
that
'postcards
have
been
sent
out
...
[saying]: "You
are
No
...
on
the
list
...
signed
the
GUB
[Guernsey
Underground
Barbers]."'
But
when
Liberation
came
'most
decent
people
considered
that,
although
in
many
cases
the
women
richly deserved
punishment,
it
should
not
be
inflicted
by
self-appointed tribunals',
and
Reverend
Ord
wisely
concluded
that
'Girls
who
have
had
children
to
Germans
will
have
their
own
burdens
to
carry
long
after public feeling
has
cooled.'4
Other
voices
of
reason
were
also raised
in
the
Jersey
Evening
Post,
and
on
18
June
1945,
at
a
time
when
Joe Miere described
how
'everybody was
pointing
the
finger',
there
appeared
a letter
headed
'Is
there
a difference?'
It
read:
'A
girl
that
had,
figuratively
speaking,
run
the
shoes off
her
feet
in
getting
food etc. for
numerous
people,
who
were
most
effusive
in
their
thanks,
now
[received]
the
cold shoulder.
Let
those
people
remember
that
according
to
English law a receiver
is
as
guilty as
the
thief.'
