Hunting Down the Jews

The Mad Drift of the SEC

Only one file at the Court of Justice of Vaucluse reveals that an indicted individual was judged almost exclusively for having either arrested or provoked the arrest of Jews. That was the case of Jean Lebon.

Inspector of the CGQJ SEC for the Vaucluse and the Gard¹ from November 1942 until his “dismissal” taking effect on August 31, 1944, Lebon could show an impressive list of successes. His file includes ten complaints, emanating from victims or victims’ relatives testifying about the persecution of the Jews of Avignon.

A remarkable element also stands out: Lebon was almost exclusively judged on the base of testimonies, contrary to his predecessor, Henri de Camaret who was confronted with a combination of testimonies and file documents that were seized at his home. In the course of our research, we have naturally looked for and found abundant material concerning the activity of Lebon and de Camaret in the archives of the regional management of the CGQJ in Marseille, responsible for those two individuals.² Surprisingly this material was not presented at Lebon’s trial by the prosecution even though its existence was mentioned and needs to be reviewed to reconstruct the course of his trial.

The decision to present here the essential elements of the procedure will undoubtedly result in some repetitions. This will however make it possible to clarify and question the conduct of the trial. This choice was made to give an idea about the atmosphere of the trial. Two dates frame the proceedings, January 18, 1945, the date of the first testimony written by the wife of a deportee, and June 29, 1945, the day of the public court session where Lebon was convicted.

The procedure file—with its hearings, confrontations and cross-examinations, with the statements of the court, the accused and the witnesses, and with the grounds for the verdict—must be compared to the archival documents not presented at the time. All of this will indicate if not our temptation to revise the trial, at least our desire to challenge the unacceptable “extenuating circumstances” of the verdict.

The victims or the victims’ relatives who lodged a complaint were heard before they were confronted with Lebon.

Henri Kohn was arrested in April 1943 and yet he survived. He was the owner of the “Marisse” hairdressing salon and perfume shop at 7, rue de la République à Avignon. It was to this store that the PPF moved its office from place Crillon in April 1944.

I met Lebon for the first time at the beginning of 1943. He came to my store showing me his CGQJ credentials. He asked to see all my documents (ID card, official family record book, ration card). He verified whether all were indeed stamped “Jew.”

Then, he went on to examine the financial records of my store, and I had to provide him with the title of my business. After that date, he returned to my hairdressing salon as a customer, but he did not ask any questions. I was convinced that he was coming only to watch my business and to see what was going on.

On April 19, 1943, at 7 in the morning, I was arrested at home by two individuals in plain clothes claiming to belong to the German police. They apprehended me, but before taking me away, they subjected me to questioning about all the information I had provided to Lebon.

Moreover, during my interrogation, they kept referring to a paper that seemed to contain all the information they were asking me about. Then they took me to the Hautpoul barracks. From there I was sent to Drancy, then to the Cherbourg area, and I was finally deported to the Anglo-Norman islands.

In May 1944, while being transferred to Germany, I managed to flee.

During our discussions, Lebon said, amongst others, “The Jews are not worth the price of the noose we would use to hang them.”

Lebon: I did not denounce Kohn, not to any French organization nor to the Gestapo. I simply provided information about his identity and his professional activity to the CGQJ that was asking for it. My report (to Marseille) would clearly indicate that I had not done anything that could harm the person and the assets of Mr. Kohn.

Kohn: I am convinced that Lebon was the cause of my arrest.

Lebon: I did what I could so that his store would not be requisitioned by the PPF. I had a conversation with Mrs. Kohn who told me “I thank you for what you have done for me, concerning the requisition of the store, but I do not forgive you for having been the cause of my husband’s arrest.” I assured Mrs. Kohn that I had absolutely nothing to do with his deportation and that, if I had actually been a member of the Gestapo, Mrs. Kohn would have also been arrested.

Lebon was careful not to mention that the wife of Henri Kohn was a Catholic, a fact he knew very well, and that she should therefore not be targeted by the laws against the Jews.

Joseph Weil born on February 25, 1881, was the husband of Maria Weil. He was arrested in Le Thor on May 8, 1943, transferred to Drancy on May 16, 1943, and deported on convoy 55 on June 23, 1943. On January 18, 1945, Maria Weil sent a letter to a woman whose identity was not immediately clear.

I was very happy to receive your kind letter of January 7 and especially to read that your dear husband is safe and sound.

Alas, since your husband says that there are no more detainees on the Anglo-Norman islands, I have no further illusions about it. You may remember that I had the premonition that he was in Germany, even if the Gestapo of Paris maintained that he was near Cherbourg because I am a catholic and baptized…

I am not sure whether I had written to you that a charitable organization for the search for deportees, in rue d’Artois, in Paris, told me that, on the same day my husband was taken from Drancy, a convoy left for Birkenau, in Upper Silesia, and that it must be assumed that he was interned there, if he was not on the Anglo-Norman islands.

It was very cold there and he had no overcoat and only one pair of shoes.

As to this Jean Lebon, I am delighted that he is in prison. He caused us so much pain. I do not know whether I could recognize him. I was so distraught on the day he was in the car of the Gestapo and they came to take us from the Avignon prison to be transferred to the prison at the Avignon barracks. He was standing with his back towards us and turned briefly to me when the head of the Gestapo got out of his car. I took him for a prefecture employee and thought he was going to intervene with the Gestapo to get us freed.

Alas, I did not suspect his duplicity. He was so unctuous with me. He even betrayed himself and he introduced himself when he came to ask for information about us in Le Thor, when we were not at home. He said that he would come back, but he never did. If he had not said so himself in the car that he had come to our home, I would never have known it was him. He was telling me “I had come to Le Thor to see you. I had come to ask you about your income to know whether you needed help or not, because we have very humane laws for the Jews.” My landlord from Le Thor could recognize him because he had spoken with her at length in the garden, having tried to worm information out of her (pardon the expression).

Coming back to this Jean Lebon, I prefer not to launch a complaint for the time being, because my husband is still in the hands of the Germans. If this Lebon creature were to be freed (we have already seen things like that recently), he would be able to get someone to seek revenge on my poor husband because I had launched a complaint. He may have kept connections with the Gestapo, if he has worked for them.

As long as my husband is not safe, I dare not do anything. I fear too much for him.

This letter was probably sent to Mrs. Kohn, whose husband had possibly been, in the mind of Mrs. Weil, companion in deportation of Joseph Weil, who never returned. The anguish of Maria Weil, like that of many others, had not disappeared with the Liberation. There was an additional fear that stirring up the past might irritate the non Jews. It was imperative above all to not make waves, as if the Liberation had not meant freedom for everybody.

Moreover, the representatives of the Avignon Jewish community, the officiating minister * accompanied by an official, expressed this malaise very well in the fall of 1944, during their visit to Max Fischer, then the sub-prefect in charge of the purges. A few weeks after the Liberation, Max Fischer had indeed been asked by Raymond Aubrac to establish and supervise the Court of Justice of Vaucluse. “Monsieur Fischer,” said the two representatives of the Jewish community, “What you are doing now is not worthy of us [the Jews]” Furious, Max Fischer showed them the door: “Be sure to exit backwards, if you want to protect your behind…”³

This uneasiness of the Jewish population, destined to persist for decades to come with varying degrees of intensity, added to the general uneasiness of the rest of the population. The witnesses, who despite their hesitation, had decided to testify against Lebon in order for justice to be served, were to deserve that much more credit.

Henri Dreyfus, a nephew of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, was the mayor of Carpentras until his destitution in 1940. He was listed in the census, and was arrested in Pernes on April 12, 1943, by Gaston Mouillade, a collaborator, and Lieutenant Wilhelm Müller, chief of the German police. Interned in Drancy, he was not deported.

I was arrested on April 12, 1943, and incarcerated at the St. Anne prison in Avignon.

A few days later, while I had not been authorized to communicate with anybody, I received the visit of a few members of the Gestapo who had come to ask for the keys to my safes.

I have positively identified a man named Lebon within that group, and it is my provisional administrator [Albert] Allard who informed me that he was an inspector at the CGQJ.

This fact, that in itself is not of prime importance, does prove however that Lebon was in excellent terms with the Gestapo.

Lebon admits to having accompanied Allard because the CGQJ had asked him to do so, and because Allard needed those keys. For those reasons, he did accompany Allard to Gestapo headquarters and to Dreyfus who surrendered the keys to Allard.

Dreyfus’ testimony and Lebon’s declaration underscore the level of collaboration between the SEC and the Gestapo, a collaboration reaching all the way up the chain of command.

Jacques Yenni was born on April 5, 1911. His name was registered in the census as an outdoor stall keeper.

Around the beginning of 1943, Lebon appeared at my domicile to check my identity documents. He was rather impertinent and verified whether the stamp “Jew” was indeed on all my documents. Since I had tried to scratch my identity card, he became violently angry and threatened to have me tried in court.

Shortly thereafter, I was summoned for the STO. I did not respond and went into hiding near Sault.

Sometime later, the STO papers arrived in Sault, but the gendarmes pretended not to find me. It is during my stay in Sault that Lebon seized my business license, and I think that it is on the basis of the reports he provided about me that I was summoned for the STO.

Lebon disputed the statements Yenni made about him. However, a report by Jean Lebon found in the archives of the CGQJ corroborates the essential parts of the statement by Yenni. On April 22, 1943, Jean Lebon proposed indeed to cancel his travel permit and business license, and to intern him in a GTE for mandatory labor.4

The entire Nahoum family was registered in the census and deported.

1- Sigma Blonstein, born Nahoum on September 18, 1907, deported on convoy 72

2- Maurice Nahoum, born on January 19, 1916, deported on convoy 74

3- Sarina Nahoum, born on October 8, 1898, deported on convoy 71

4- Isaac Nahoum, born on April 15, 1897, deported on convoy 71

5- Henri Nahoum, born on March 3, 1923, deceased before deportation at Tenon hospital in Paris

Victor Nahoum testifies:

At the beginning of 1943, I received the visit of a man named Jean Lebon who was an inspector of the SEC at the CGQJ. After checking my documents and those of my family, he stated that he was surprised to see me here, while there was so much work for young people.

I told him that I was working at the store run by my uncle in rue Carnot, but that did not seem to satisfy him.

Shortly thereafter, Victor Nahoum received an order to join the STO and decided to hide. His testimony continues.

On several occasions, Lebon came to the store to verify my uncle’s financial records.

On March 29, 1944, my family, composed of my uncle, my aunt, my nephew, my brother and my sister, was arrested by the French members of the Gestapo.

I had no news of my family for many months.

After my uncle’s arrest, the store has been administered by a man named Bonnet from Nîmes, but the warehouse was looted.

I cannot specify the exact role played by Lebon. Nevertheless, I can assure you that he is the only one we had any dealings with and that all the hardship we have had to go through since his first visit can only have originated from the reports he made about me and my family.

Lebon declared that he had “nothing to do with the arrest of this family.” Victor Nahoum alludes to the looting of the store “The 200,000 stockings,” which we will revisit in the case of Tiziano Feroldi.

Flore Asmanoff, née Cohen, was registered in the census. Her husband, Moïse Asmanoff, outdoor stall keeper, also in the census, was deported on convoy 73 after his arrest in Orange. He survived.

At the beginning of November 1943, I received a visit from a man who asked me where my husband was. He was actually working at his stall on Place Pie, but I answered that he was away. I feared that this individual belonged to the Gestapo, but he left me a card with his name and his position of inspector of the CGQJ.

He behaved brutally, and after he explained the goal of his visit which consisted of verifying my husband’s identity, he began to speak about the situation at the time and said among other things that he had been born to harm the Jews. He continued on this subject for a long time while stressing that the Jewish race should not exist, and that all the wars would disappear if the Jews were also to disappear.

I presume that with such a frame of mind an individual of his kind could only harm people of the Jewish faith, and it is because I want to make sure that he is punished for his harmful actions that I have the duty to give evidence now.

Lebon “denies the statements that were attributed to him.”

Moïse Yaffe was a hosiery merchant also registered on the census. He was arrested, and then released in March 1944.

In February 1943 I received the visit of the man named Lebon who asked to see my identity documents. As I gave them to him, he put a stamp on them although there already was one.

Sometime later, I had to travel to Nîmes on business. I ran into Lebon who gestured me to come closer and asked what I was doing there. I told him that my papers were in order and that it was the Avignon police that had issued the safe-conduct necessary for my travel.

He said that I was not allowed to travel, and since I was convinced to the contrary, I understood that he intended to persecute us.

On another occasion, he told me that he wanted to rid Avignon of all the Jews. He also said that I was not authorized to conduct my business, and a short time later, I was given an administrator.

On numerous occasions, he came to see me as well as all my fellow merchants, and we were under his tight surveillance.

Lebon was also responsible for the deportation of my father, my brother and my nephew. He himself carried out their arrest under the pretext that they were of the Jewish faith.

The damage caused by Lebon to the Jews of Avignon is unimaginable, and it is certain that, if he had had full powers, we would have been all deported or killed.

Lebon denied the charge once again. “I am surprised by the witness’s statement, since I have met Mr. Yaffe often enough, and our relations were almost friendly. We always shook hands and I even had a cup of coffee with him in Nîmes.”

The presence of Lebon in Nîmes was linked to his dual role as inspector of the SEC for the Vaucluse and for the Gard. It is therefore surprising that he was not charged with any crime in the Gard and in some Bouches du Rhône cities bordering the Vaucluse (Chateaurenard, Arles, Tarascon).

Jean Marx who was registered in the 1941 census was a refugee. He used to live in Ste. Marie aux Mines (Haut-Rhin).

During the summer of 1942 I received the visit of an individual named Lebon. He showed me documents on CGQJ stationary, and he told me that he had been appointed director for Jewish affairs for the département of Vaucluse, replacing a man named de Camaret.

This individual, after having checked my documents to verify that they were stamped with the word “Juif,” not content to know that all the declarations about my assets had been given at the prefecture, he told me that he would take over all the investigations, and he checked whether I had stopped practicing medicine since February 11, 1942.

Having declared that I was employed as a concentrator of grape must at the fram of la Bathelasse, Lebon went there several times under the pretext of checking my presence and to extort some quantity of wine from the owner during each of his visits.

Lebon, during his visits to my home, claimed to be “proud of helping the purge of the country of this Jewish gangrene and that it was necessary to end the malfeasance of the Jews, the cause of all the misfortunes of France that fortunately thanks to the Maréchal and himself, this was about to be taken care of.”

At my explanation that, after I was dispossessed of my assets and my parents had died (my father, French mayor of Willer on the Thur, Haut Rhin, during 12 years, my grandfather, military medal-holder in 1870), I needed a job to raise my children, he sniggered while promising more work than I wanted in a concentration camp. As he was leaving, he said “You will have a less luxurious apartment. I will see to it.”

During my absence, I was a lieutenant doctor of the FFI in Haute Savoie, Lebon came to my home several times, wanting to know at all costs where I was hiding, and he threatened to deport to Poland the young catholic woman, a 1940 war widow, who was at my service, if she persisted and did not respond to his demands and continued working for Jews.

Jean Marx was probably mistaken about the date, because “during the summer of 1942” Lebon was still secretary of the census of the PQJ in Marseille.5 He took up his post as inspector of the SEC only in November 1942.

Lebon was not as firmly righteous as one might think. He was using his position to get free wine from Marx’s boss similar to mob practices. Did Lebon receive his share of the looting that took place during and after the arrests of Jews?

After the war, Dr. Marx became an influential member of the Jewish community. An ardent patriot, he was very anxious to see the Jews regain their place within the French nation.

The entire Cohen family was registered during the census, the father Léon, the mother Judith, the children Raphael and Marguerite. Léon was a day worker at the silk manufacturing plant, Chemin de Bonaventure.

Raphael, born on June 24, 1920, was deported on convoy 81. In the Memorial of the Deportation, Serge Klarsfeld wrote that this convoy left the camp of Noé, passing through the camp of St. Sulpice, to reach Toulouse where Jewish internees were loaded at the Cafaretti barracks. The destination was Weimar-Buchenwald. Raphael Cohen was on “Autrand’s list of deportees,” with May 25, 1943, as the date of his arrest.6 Autrand adds “Buchenwald—returned.” Raphael was indeed a survivor. This was confirmed by his Yad Vashem testimony of October 8, 1992, regarding his father Léon Cohen, deported on convoy 75.

Judith Cohen states:

Towards the end of 1943, I received the visit of a man who introduced himself as an inspector of the CGQJ.

He asked me for details about my son who was then 22. At the time, he was working at Bouchara and was not at all involved in politics. Sometime later, my son became unemployed. Everywhere he applied, nobody wanted to hire him under the pretext he was Jewish.

He also had to deal with Lebon who, later, wrote a report about my son. The latter was arrested at the beginning of June and sent to St. Sulpice La Pointe.

I went to see him five months later and he smuggled out a copy of the report established against him by Lebon. In August, he was deported to Germany and I have had no more news from him.

I categorically accuse the man named Lebon to be at the base of the arrest and the deportation of my son through the report he provided about him.

Lebon: I do not know Cohen’s son. The information about the state of his baptism was give to me by the mother herself.

Judith Cohen: Lebon knows my son. He has asked him the information mentioned in this report one day in front of the Regina [café]. I will even add that Lebon had told my daughter, whose identity card was not stamped “Juive,” while she was protesting “Do you want me to send you to the Gestapo and be deported to Poland?”

Lebon: I categorically contest this last statement.

Elise Yaffe’s husband, Elie, was born on March 1, 1898, her father-in-law, Jacob, in 1869, and his son, Jacques (Jackie), on June 8, 1930, in Avignon. The three of them were deported on convoy 72. The family was registered in the census of French or foreign Jews.

I have met a man named Lebon for the first time at the beginning of March 1943. When he arrived at my home, he introduced himself as inspector of the CGQJ of Avignon. As such, he required that we show all our identity and rationing cards in order to check whether they all had the mention “Juif.” Afterwards, he asked for the size of our capital.

On March 29, 1944, at midnight, while my husband was returning from guarding the railroad, he was arrested by Lebon at the door of our home. Lebon was accompanied by seven men belonging to the Milice and the Gestapo. They locked my husband in one of the three cars which had brought them, and left him there under guard. Then, they conducted a roundup in the neighborhood and arrested approximately 40 Jews. It was Lebon who directed the operation. In general, they beat people up and operated with extreme violence. They gathered everybody and took them to the offices of the Milice, rue Joseph Vernet. At the end of the roundup, Lebon took my husband off the car and five of them came upstairs to my apartment. They all had their weapons in their hands.

Lebon then spoke to me, he asked for my identity and ration cards which, by the way, he never gave back to me, then seeing an empty bed, he asks me where the occupant was. I must tell you that it was my son Jackie, 14 years old, whom I had, as a precaution, hidden in the attic. Since I was refusing to tell him who it was, he threatened me and I had to resign myself and bring my son down.

Lebon then knocked on the door of my 75-year-old father-in-law. He ordered him to get dressed and follow them. My father-in-law resisted and on the orders of Lebon, he was pulled out of his bed and forcefully dressed. Near one in the morning, Lebon and his acolytes left with my husband, my son and my father-in-law. When it came time to leave, my daughter got closer to kiss her father good bye, but she was then brutally beaten by Lebon. I want to specify that all the men were speaking in perfect French. As they were leaving, they said they would be back the next morning.

The next day, one of the men who had come on the previous evening came to my home. He said that in return for a few one thousand francs in banknotes, my family would be released. I responded that I had no money, and he demanded that I surrender our car. As I was resisting him, he called a German who had been waiting downstairs and both of them asked me to take them to our store. They looted it, filled their car with merchandise and left, leaving my store open and ransacked. The following day, I left Avignon with my two children to take refuge in Carpentras.

I omitted to tell you that when Lebon and his accomplices were taking my family away, they also wanted me to follow them. I had a young baby of 14 months and I categorically refused. Lebon handcuffed me and hit me violently. After seeing the medical prescriptions, Lebon became aware that my son was sick, and agreed to leave me behind in order to take care of him.

I never got any news from my son, my husband, or my father-in-law and I think that they were deported to Upper Silesia.

Lebon: I admit that I came in March 43 to the home of the witness… I indeed asked Mrs. Yaffe and her husband why they had not left for Turkey as they had been ordered to do… I deny having come to their home on March 29, 1944.

The roundup of March 29, 1944, was conducted by the French auxiliaries of the German police. This emphasizes an occasional additional link between Lebon and the hoodlums engaged in the capture of Jews.

In 1943, for the Jews of Turkish origin, returning to Turkey was not an order, as Lebon claimed, but a noncompulsory proposal. According to the note of the prefecture of March 24, 1943, signed by Aimé Autrand and sent to the Central police superintendant of Avignon he states: “I am asking you to contact urgently the heads of the families listed below, and inquire whether they would agree to return to their country of origin.”7

Lebon provided an alibi for the night of March 28 to 29, 1944, which he spent in Marseille. His witness specified that Lebon was supposed to be in Avignon on the 29th to celebrate the birthday of his girlfriend. Contrary to his claim, it is clear that he was indeed in Avignon during the roundup in question, during the night from March 29 to 30.

Esther Revah’s husband, Victor, was deported by convoy 74. Her father, Moïse Mordoh, grocer, born on April 19, 1883, was deported by convoy 72. The family was registered in the census.

On March 29, 1944, around one in the morning, eight individuals arrived at our home and after having introduced themselves as police, they told us they had come to arrest us because we were Jewish.

The individual named Lebon was amongst them, as well as a man around 30 years old wearing a small moustache.

During that night, we had to endure their threats, their insults and their beatings. They all behaved with unprecedented brutality. They were all armed with a handgun.

Thanks to the commotion created by their arrival, I was able to escape alone, and I hid until Liberation.

It is then that I learned that my father had been arrested and deported during the roundup of March 29, 1944. I must say that my husband had been deported since 1943.

It has been a long time I have had no news from them. I can also say that people who were living in the same building were arrested and deported. These are the Levy family, composed of two Levy brothers, three women and a 14 year old girl. I am bringing this family to your attention, since they will not be able to complain in person because it is the entire family.

There probably is an error in the transcription of the minutes concerning Esther’s husband, Victor, born on January 10, 1908. He could not have been deported since 1943, because he was arrested on May 10, 1944, arrived in Drancy on May 19, 1944, coming from the Marseille region, and was on convoy 74, which left that camp the next day.

We have found the six members of the Levy family mentioned by Esther Revah. Arrested on March 29, 1944, and deported, they were all registered in the census at the address 2, rue Mijane. They were:

1- David (Dario) Levy, born on March 11, 1905, in Salonica, deported on convoy 71

2- Esterina Levy (née Almosnino), born on April 17, 1909, in Salonica, deported on convoy 71

3- Dora (Denise) Levy, born on March 18, 1931, in Avignon, deported on convoy 71

4- Mathilde Levy (née Matarasso), born on April 12, 1909, in Salonica, deported on convoy 72

5- Rachel Matarasso, born on January 25, 1917, in Salonica, deported on convoy 72

6- Ovadia Levy, born on January 21, 1906, in Salonica, deported on convoy 72, a survivor

The witness had to be unaware of the fact that Ovadia was the sole survivor of the Levy family. Esther Revah mentioned six members of the Levy family. The sixth one was Rachel Matarasso, the sister of Mathilde Levy, also née Matarasso.

On March 12, 1945, the investigating magistrate, Louis Béral, interrogated Lebon for the first time, and with the assistance of Raoul Roux, he recorded the session in the minutes.

Jean Lebon

32 year old, ex-inspector at the CGQJ 8

Avignon, avenue St. Paul Monclar

Born on March 17, 1913, in Ernée, département of the Mayenne, son of Eugène and of Clémentine Sinope.

Single

Charged with actions sanctioned by articles 75 and following of the penal code and by ordinance of November 28, 1944

At the beginning of the interrogation, Lebon said:

I agree to explain my actions while assisted by my council M. Ortial.

As an officer on armistice leave, I was hired in April 1941 as an accountant at the Secrétariat général à la Jeunesse. Since my salary was significantly insufficient, I accepted on February 5, 1942, a position as census secretary at the PQJ of the CGQJ *. On November 1, 1942, I was named an inspector at the CGQJ.

My functions consisted of investigating the professional and racial situation of the Israelites.

I was detached from the Marseille administration to operate in the Vaucluse, and this is how I ended up dealing with the situation of the Israelites of the region on the initiative of the CGQJ. I did nothing on my personal initiative. I am very surprised to have made myself a great many enemies in the region amongst the Israelites.

I have indeed fulfilled my function with the greatest possible moderation, and I am ready to face the confrontation with each witness who gave evidence against me.

Read, approved and signed.

During his defense, Lebon notably uses the more respectable term “Israelite,” while during the war he had used the pejorative “Jew” in the official SEC documents. On April 17, 1945, the final interrogation took place under the direction of Judge Béral.

… You went to elementary school in Ernée, then to secondary school at the lycée of Laval and of Rennes. You obtained your high school diploma, and after high school, you worked for one year as a dental technician in Laval.

At the age of 18½, you enlisted in the 22nd BCA^† in Nice. You were then assigned to the 1st RTA^‡ in Blida. You were successively posted to Meknès, Tataouine, and later, you were demobilized in Blida after you asked to be put on leave because of the reduction of the officers due to the 1940 armistice.

You were promoted as an NCO in 1934 while serving in the 22nd BCA, staff sergeant and warrant officer at the No. 1 Infantry depot and second lieutenant while at the 33rd RTA.

In your quality of SEC inspector at the CGQJ, you are accused of having exhibited towards Israelites such an activity that some of them hold you clearly responsible for the trouble, the arrests, or the deportations they or their families have been the victims of.

1- M. Henri Kohn states that you are the cause of his arrest since he claims that no other person than you could have provided de precise details to the policemen who had arrested him. You are claiming that you had nothing to do with his arrest and you indicate that you did all what was in your power to prevent his store from being requisitioned by the PPF

2- Jacques Yenni declares that you came into his home in a rude manner at the beginning of 1943, and that after your visit, he was called for the STO. You deny having made the comments he attributes to you. You admit however having checked his documents, but you claim to have had nothing to do with the measures he was subjected to.

3- Esther Revah accuses you of having come to her home in the company of seven other individuals on March 29, 1944, at one in the morning. During that visit, she claims having been subjected to insults, threats and beatings. He father was arrested and later deported. On March 12, 1945, you were confronted with the witness. But on that day, Esther Revah declared that, after such on long time, she could not remember whether it was actually you, as she had asserted in front of police Inspector Leyris. You state, on the other hand, that you paid a visit to Mrs. Revah only once to make the customary verifications of her documents and those of her family.

4- Victor Nahoum reports that you visited him in the course of 1943. You checked his documents and those of his family, and you expressed surprise to still see him there, given his age. Shortly after your visit, he was taken by the Germans to build the fortifications of St. Nazaire. On March 29, his uncle, his aunt, his nephew, his brother and his sister were arrested by the Gestapo. The witness states that you certainly are at the origin of these measures, which you vehemently deny.

5- Judith Cohen categorically accuses you as responsible for the arrest and deportation of her son, which is attributable only to the report that you provided about him. You deny this accusation; you claim to not be at all the author of that report, a copy of which was given to the young man, Cohen, and was attached to the file. You also deny having asked Raphael Cohen for the information contained in this document, under the conditions reported by the mother during her deposition.

6- Flore Asmanoff assures us that during November 1943, she received your visit. You told her that you were born to harm Jews. You maintain that you have never said what is attributed to you.

7- Mr. Henri Dreyfus claims that on May 12, 1943, you arrived in the company of Mr. Allard at the Hautpoul barracks where he was detained to ask for the key to his safe. It has been established that it is at the request of Mr. Allard that you had come to the Haupoul barracks, because as an administrator of Jewish assets, Mr. Allard needed the keys of the safe which Mr. Dreyfus had with him at the time of his arrest, an arrest which you have nothing to do with.

8- On March 29, 1944, at midnight, in the company of seven men belonging to the Milice and the Gestapo,* you conducted the arrest of Mr. Yaffe. During the same evening and while directing the operations, you are said to have conducted a roundup and arrested around forty Jews. Madame Rachel Yaffe specifies also that on that evening you took away not only her husband, but her son and her father-in-law. You are even said to have hit the witness when she approached to kiss her father before you took him away^†. You maintain that you never came on March 29, 1944, to the domicile of the Yaffe family together with miliciens and members of the Gestapo. You claimed to be absent from Avignon at the date reported by the witness. Indeed, a witness, Antonin Alesandrini, reports, through written deposition, that you spent the night from March 28 to March 29, 1944, at his home: 1, rue d’Hozier in Marseille.

9- René Mayer states that during May 1943 you subjected him to a two-hour interrogation to find out whether he belonged to the Jewish race. In the course of the interrogation, you told him “it is necessary to eliminate all the Jews.” You deny having said the words he attributed to you.

10- Finally, Doctor Jean Marx declares that he received your visit during the summer of 1942. You verified whether he indeed had ceased to practice medicine. During your visits, you claimed that you were proud of helping this country to get rid of the Jewish gangrene and that it was necessary to put an end to the malfeasance of the Jews who were the cause of all the misfortunes of France

The judge asked: “Do you wish to add anything to your previous statements?” Lebon embarked on a long convoluted statement, aimed at exonerating himself and refuting every accusation. He even became the prosecutor.

… I therefore accuse the man named Villars,^** a member of the Gestapo, of having arrested the people who accuse me now, or of having been the cause of their arrest.

I accuse Debon, currently at the Beaumettes prison in Marseille, of having, perhaps thoughtlessly, given the information drawn from my reports, to Villars; this information was only of a conventional usefulness for the service of the CGQJ, but Villars used them for his personal financial profit through the usual route of the Gestapo…

Despite lies, half-truths and omissions, Lebon nevertheless admitted having been the author of the reports against the Jews.

In his summing-up of June 8, 1945, the government commissioner first described the accused, and followed with all the charges brought up by the witnesses, including the arrests operated by Lebon during the roundup of March 29, 1944. He emphasizes his anti-Semitism.

…It is undeniable that Lebon is responsible for the arrest of numerous Jews. He could indeed not ignore the fate and the usefulness of the reports he was writing in manifestly anti-Semitic spirit.

The government commissioner concluded by requesting a verdict against the accused.

Considering that this information has resulted in sufficient charges against the man named Lebon, domiciled in Avignon (jailed), for having, in France, from 1942 to 1944, or in any case after June 16, 1940, undermined the external security of the state, a crime and offence, covered and punished by Article 75 and following articles of the penal code.

In view of the ordinances of June 26 and November 28, 1944, we have decided to refer the man named Jean Lebon to the Court of Justice of Vaucluse to be judged in accordance with the law.

At the public hearing of June 29, 1945, the president of the jury read the questions to the jury and the responses.

First Question:

Is the accused Jean Lebon guilty of having, in the Vaucluse, after June 16, 1940, undermined the external security of the state and had secret dealings with the enemy, while he was inspector at the SEC of the CGQJ, particularly by provoking through his reports and investigations, the arrest, internment or deportation of numerous persons of Jewish race? Yes, by a majority

Second Question:

Is it constant that, in his actions, the accused has demonstrated an excessive zeal or personal initiative going beyond the orders or instructions he had received? Yes, by a majority.

The court pronounced a more nuanced verdict.

The Court: in view of the responses to the questions posed,

Considering that the existing facts as presented constitute the crime covered and punished by Article 75 paragraphs 2 and 5 of the penal code,

Considering however that there are, by a majority of votes, extenuating circumstances in favor of the accused and that it is appropriate to apply article 463 of the penal code:

Sentences, by a majority of votes, Jean Lebon to hard labor for life, Orders, by a majority of votes, the confiscation of all Jean Lebon’s assets, Sentences him to bear the trial costs.

If one stops for an instant at the first question to the jury, one cannot help noticing that the notion of “Jewish race” had not disappeared with the Liberation. A period does not necessarily fade away with the even violent rejection of the previous institutions. This state of mind would definitely contribute one more element to the fears of the Jews after “Liberation,” that single event that took many meanings. Contrary to the language in force for decades after the war, Jean-Pierre Azéma observed that there had been “several Libérations depending on who you were.”9 The people who had been on the side of the victors did not experience the “Liberation” in the same way as the collaborators and their families who were associated with the vanquished. On the surface, the “Liberation of the Jews” was supposed to be that of the victors, but the reality was far more complex, since Liberation had not erased their “defeat.” After the war, the Jewish population was once again safe, but amputated of its victims, in a society it had not stopped fearing, despite the return of the Republic. And of course, the judges do not miss the opportunity of reminding this population that it is still a part of the Jewish race, namely the “vanquished.” The Jews will not fully partake in the Liberation of the victors or in that of the vanquished; they will have their own Liberation, that of the “vanquished-victors.”

It is remarkable that the only charges against Lebon retained by the jury are the reports he filed that provoked arrests and the excessive zeal in the exercise of his task. And yet, the commissioner of the government had mentioned in his opening statement Lebon’s active participation in the arrests of March 29, 1944, according to two independent witnesses. Was this accusation so extraordinary that two testimonies would not be sufficient to establish it?

As for the “extenuating circumstances… by a majority of votes,” the procedure against Lebon gave no indication about them, with perhaps the exception of taking his denials into consideration. But who could take into account the denials of the accused in front of multiple testimony? This question raises another one which is much more disturbing: if Lebon had written about members of the resistance in his reports, thereby leading to their arrest or not, or if he had directly participated in the arrests of members of the resistance, would he have benefited from “extenuating circumstances with a majority of the votes”? The answer to this question would have raised no doubts: in the climate of that time, the life of a Jew is not worth that of a member of the resistance. It seems, indeed, that Liberation had not yet liquidated the “Jewish question.”

This state of mind could be found almost everywhere in France. After Liberation, didn’t some Paris employees of the CGQJ regularly come back to work, hoping that someone would finally take the seals off and open the doors?10 In addition, didn’t around 20 employees write a letter in December 1944 asking to be reinstated into the CGQJ so that they can “lend their support to the necessary task of cleansing and rebuliding”?

We can understand that employees and low level managers might have gone off their heads. But, how can one explain that, after the departure of the Germans and the arrival of the provisional government, Jean Armilhon, director of the legal services of the CGQJ, had designated himself as “Director of the CGQJ administration” after Joseph Antignac, its last acting director, had fled? From his office with the CGQJ sign on place des Petits Pères in Paris, Armilhon had written to the budget director in view of ensuring the remuneration of his agents: “Moreover, the personnel is starting to come back with a keen desire to return to work.”¹¹ For these people, the reconstruction of France was therefore hinging on the continuation of the CGQJ mission, and there was absolutely no doubt that the job needed to be finished.

In the court file, a last document emanating from the Resistance added to the disturbing aspect of the verdict. It is an undated letter number 2916.

In July [1943], Mrs. Breillat, a short hand typist, infiltrated the regional office of the CGQJ, 49 cours Pierre Puget, in Marseille, in order to identify the police of the SEC of the said administration, and keep an eye over what the AP are up to.

Having become in January 1944 the secretary to the regional director of the Commissariat, Mr. Ramaroni, our comrade (Mrs. Breillat) was able to obtain all the information useful to prevent the arrest of some people by the German police and cause a delay in the sale of Jewish assets.

Some time before Liberation, we had in our possession the addresses of the administrators and functionaries of the CGQJ who belonged in large part to the Milice, and the PPF and whom we have arrested during the insurrection itself, starting on August 22, 1944.

Mrs. Breillat was able to overhear Lebon, inspector of the SEC at the CGQJ, who was in charge of tracking down Jews, Gaullists, etc.

This individual was a supporter of ultra-collaboration with the “boches” in his conversations, during his visits at the CGQJ in Marseille.

Edouard Padovani

AS. Mle 211.31 bis

Member of the group “Combat”

No. 554 - Region R2

Gabrielle Bordas

Member FFI in the Basses Alpes

Region 42-44

Charged with recruiting for the

maquis

Ex political internee, card 86

Avignon

Jean Lebon was a disreputable person; the testimony by many witnesses confirms it. However, most of the proceedings would tend to cast doubt as for the severity of his actions. This comes of course from his own denials which one may or may not believe. But they cannot be rejected outright because there is always a possibility that he spoke the truth.

There are also questions which could affect the credibility of the testimony. Did the witnesses exaggerate Lebon’s zeal in executing the measures which, even without any zeal, were already appalling? In addition, Esther Revah stated during the confrontation that “she does not remember Lebon.” This remark is essential because Lebon was accused of having participated in the arrest of her family that took place on the evening of March 29, 1944. Of course, Elise Yaffe, second witness, was much more categorical about the participation of Lebon in the round up of March 29; she had also faced his hostility during prior inquiries of Lebon at her domicile.

Before we begin our examination of the charges against Lebon at the light of the documents of the AJ 38 series,* two omissions stand out in the entire procedure, and in particular in the statement of the Commissioner of the government.

Nobody seemed to know that the accused was briefly an inspector at the PQJ after he resigned from his position of secretary of the census. A statement of February 24, 1942, confirms it:

I undersigned Mr. [Jean] Pegeot, chief of the PQJ, certify that Mr. Jean Lebon, 24, rue des Beaux Arts, Marseille, serves as Police Inspector, section of the Jewish Questions and that as such he has to conduct investigations at night.

The present certificate can be used as necessary and amongst others to obtain a ration card, category “T.”*¹²

He became inspector of the SEC when the PQJ ceased to exist.

The second omission was much more important than the first: in addition to his role as inspector of the SEC for the Vaucluse, Lebon was not only inspector of the SEC for the Gard, but also executed targeted missions in municipalities of the Bouches du Rhône close to Avignon, depending on the needs of the director of the SEC of Marseille. No witnesses were called on this issue, and no documents were presented to the court. This is all the more regrettable since the Court of Justice was aware of Lebon’s trips to Nîmes.

Let us revisit briefly the “Marisse” case. Lebon attributed to himself the merit of having helped the wife of Henri Kohn. Lebon stated “I have done all that was in my power to prevent her store from being requisitioned by the PPF.” In fact, this represents yet a new lie. First, we know that Mrs. Kohn was Catholic. On April 7, 1944, Lebon’s boss sent him instructions concerning the “Marisse” business where he specifically wrote:

… you should bring to the attention of Monsieur the Prefect that this business is half Aryan through the wife who, by her contribution, owns 16/28 of it, and in this case, it appears that he must intervene to safeguard the rights of an Aryan woman…¹³

It is clear that Lebon’s boss urged him to be cautious in the preservation of the rights of an Aryan woman, even if she committed the crime of being the spouse of a Jew. Is it the late date of such an episode that induced the boss to cautiously avoid a blunder?

First, who was Lebon in the eyes of his boss in Marseille? In his self-evaluation of July 1943, one reads: “Remains as serious and convinced an inspector as he has always been, perfectly sound, honest, skillful in his investigations, but really handicapped by his basic education.” The handicap which Lebon alluded to is tied to the fact that he had only the first part of a high school diploma. Although a little more moderate, his chief of service was almost in agreement with Lebon’s glorious view of himself: “Inspector seriously convinced, full of enthusiasm, however keeps a young outlook. Discharges his mission as responsible for two départements conscientiously, in spite of the handicap of his basic education.” In fact, overall, Lebon’s colleagues did not have better credentials than he did; judging by the unrestrained behavior of most members of the SEC,14 this organization was offering to young recruits easy prospects and power not found in “normal” positions.

Lebon’s boss even proposed a promotion “one step above the current position.” There were very good reasons for this. During this period, Lebon had indeed made almost one hundred inspections, of which we have sampled only 3 months. Out of 41 investigations, 27 were made on his own initiative while 14 had been requested by others, including his boss. The collection of his reports for 1943 and 1944 all showed the same zeal. At the beginning of 1944, one can feel a late change in his bosses which Lebon takes into account as indicated in this letter to his boss in Marseille:

SUBJECT: Your note RG/SF No. 268 of March 2, 1944

In response to your note cited above, I am honored to inform you that I am taking into account your observations that no mission or investigation can be performed if it does not originate from your services and if a signed order of mission is not addressed to me…

In accordance with your instructions, I have informed this service [Service of foreigners of the prefecture, under Aimé Autrand] that they must send to your service any request of investigation for you to approve…

One senses a stronger hand in dealing with the inspectors of the SEC by Raymond Guilledoux, Lebon’s boss at that time. As we already know, the boss had decided to restore order in the “mess left behind by his predecessors.” One can also see a manifestation of his desire to channel the zeal of his subordinate towards the “most serious issues.” The instructions from Marseille covered investigation requests coming from outside the SEC and did not exclude the initiatives of Lebon himself, since he was part of the service. This limited and somewhat late moderation of Lebon in undertaking investigations was sufficient to repress his untidy zeal of the past 15 months, and had the advantage of better focusing his energy.

Lebon lied again in his statement and with good reason.

In 1943, Lebon had undertaken several investigations at the request of the Milice, without referring the matter to his boss. On March 22, 1944, he was contacted by Yves Thesmar, chief of the Milice of the Vaucluse. This time, Lebon informed his boss: “The latter [Thesmar] did not hide his desire that I collaborate with him in order to make him aware of any obstruction by the Police, the Judges, the Prefecture and others.” The response from Lebon’s boss, on March 31, 1944, is a masterpiece of political obfuscation.

In response to your letter No. 46 dated March 22, 1944, related to eventual relations with the Milice, inspired by the service note No. 62 from the Director of the SEC who specifies that our mission is to “investigate and control,” these terms being understood in the largest possible sense, I am honored to inform you that your collaboration with the organization you had cited does not seem to me susceptible of having any drawbacks.

Indeed, even if our respective attributions are different, they bear in common the political objective they are aimed at.

It is for you to decide what can benefit to the Révolution Nationale and to give it your all.

However, it matters to keep, as far as you are concerned, absolute independence, and avoid every unethical compromise by strictly remaining within the context of verbal relations.

Finally, from the standpoint of pure intelligence, there is a rule for those who dedicate themselves to it: give little and wisely, to reap a lot, everywhere and always.

The roar of the allied guns seemed to encourage the boss of the SEC to more prudence, although he still maintained his fidelity to the impersonal Révolution Nationale; prudence towards his own bosses in Vichy and Paris, but also prudence in anticipation of the arrival of the future masters. Was Liberation already in line of sight? Perhaps, this explains why Lebon’s boss was getting a better grip on his employee.

The Goetschel affair was not the only case raised to the credit of M. Geoffroy. Another case raised the suspicions of Jean Lebon.

In 1943, “Martine Couture” was an Aryan enterprise of womens’ ready-to-wear, but Lebon noticed that it had been created on August 3, 1939, under the name of “Avignon Couture” by six Jews: Joseph Pilosoff, David Benveniste, Jacques Saportas, Maurice Benveniste, Joseph Benveniste, and Salvator Asseo.15 On September 8, 1941, a bill of sale to two Aryans (Paulette Rampone and Alphonse Mailhos) was signed at the office of Maître Geoffroy; this caused Lebon to note in his August 3, 1943, investigation:

After this sale, the LLC “Avignon Couture” becomes “Martine Couture.” This sale does not include 100 shares of 1000 francs, and there is no mention of the intangible elements of the business—this is why I am inclined to believe that this operation was fictitious.

As a result, Lebon’s boss decided to put “Martine Couture” under provisional administration “in order to determine whether this business is under Jewish influence.”

In his second monthly report, of December 1942, Jean Lebon showed that he was aware that he could not rely on everybody.

ACTIVITIES AND DIVERSE REACTIONS OF THE ARYANS

In too many cases, the Aryans, in the spirit of Christian charity (?)^* or out of pure self-interest, are passive or help the Jewish tribe in exchange for remuneration.

In the first case, a wind of pessimism covers Avignon, where there are many Aryans who are afraid that their present activity might later disrupt their relations with the Jews, when these get the upper hand again. This situation is dangerous and deserves attention.¹⁶

Lebon underlined some terms and wondered about the motive linked to “Christian charity,” a feeling he apparently did not share. Lebon’s view was in sharp contrast with the analysis of public opinion in Vaucluse by prefect Piton following the arrests of August 1942. On October 5, 1942, the prefect wrote:

The measure taken against the foreign Jews have raised some emotion amongst the population which generally took pity of the fate of the regrouped people. The sentiment expressed by the Church on this issue was not without having an influence on public opinion.

However, the selfish preoccupations of everyone rapidly overtook the reaction mentioned which has now become a mere memory.17

One can probably assume that the judgment of the prefect was based on a more detached attitude that the obsessive militancy of Lebon, who brought everything back to his daily anti-Semitic mission.

On March 20, 1943, Mr. Roger Bonpuis, chief of the Légion des Combattants in Le Thor, sent a complaint to the prefect:

We have here a Jewish family, the father Stern, the mother and two daughters who maintain an anti-French propaganda to the utmost degree, and who did whatever was in their power to prevent my son from leaving [as a volunteer to Germany], the eldest Yvonne giving herself to my son as his fiancée, the second Maidy is in the process of causing the downfall of another honorable family of Le Thor…

In his investigation report of April 17, 1943, Lebon echoed the words of Roger Bonpuis and guarded the “purity of the race in Provence.” Yvonne Stern, 21 years old, who was at the center of Lebon’s concern, was baptized on January 15, 1943.

On their arrival at Le Thor, this family again without a homeland, seeks a relation with the family of Mr. Bonpuis, a retired Captain, President of the Légion, residing in Le Thor; a family which includes twelve children^* and whose last born is the godson of the Maréchal.

It is thus on the romantic plane and through the agency of the daughter Yvonne Stern that this attempt of interference into this truly French family took place. The latter indeed is wooing one of the Bonpuis sons, Fernand, assiduously following an incident which has been referred to the public prosecutor’s office (… it relates to a matter of abortion)…

In the course of my investigation, after I asked young Yvonne Stern to provide her certificate of baptism, she brought me, five minutes later, the… entire Register of Baptism of the Parish!

I find it very odd that a priest would part with these documents, especially in the hands of a foreigner (the parish priest of Le Thor, is Abbot Jules Mazet).

I went to see the mayor [Dr. H Azais] who did not hide the interest he was taking in this family [Stern] and disavowed all the attempts by Mr. Bonpuis to break this union…

This doctor, Mayor of Le Thor, and vice-president of the Légion does not enjoy a good reputation in the Légion of Vaucluse and his replacement is requested.

The parish priest of Le Thor was not the only clergyman who had to be outwitted. Amongst the investigations requested of Lebon, there was a letter intercepted by the censors and marked “CONFIDENTIAL.”18 Abbot Bourdette, its author, was sending fake certificates of baptism to the mother of a Jewish family while exhorting her to use them “… only to obtain the cards your children need, do not use them in a church, for instance for a church wedding, because they would be sent back.”

To track down the famous fake certificates of baptism and to enforce the Statut des Personnes (Statute of Individuals) Lebon repeatedly launched investigations aimed at proving the Judaism of suspects and then notified authorities. Another member of the clergy made his task easier. On June 22, 1943, Henri Audemard, priest at Our Lady of Les Blanches, wrote to the CGQJ.

From Lapalud (Vaucluse), where I went to visit friends, I am now returning nauseated by what they said when they told me that they are facing Jews living in opulence, insulting, by their great lifestyle and their excessive joy, to the misery of their neighbors, all true French people 100% for Pétain.

I imagine that it will be sufficient to notify you of the insulting and provoking attitude of these Jews in order for it to be put right soon. It goes without saying that, for the Jews I am mentioning to you, the black market is moving along briskly wherever they are. It is scandalous to see these foreigners starving the true French people.

Jews, freemasons, communists are swarming here. In a letter to Pétain of April 4, 1941, I took the liberty to expose a civil funeral where the barons and vassals of freemasonry had made an appointment.

One doesn’t mind literally proclaiming this:

“Pétain believes he has killed us, we can see here, that we are more alive than ever, and happier than ever to have been able to surround Pétain with many of our own.” I have since learned that amongst the people planted into Pétain’s entourage, [Jean-François] Darlan has been amongst the winners and proved himself. I want to believe that your activity against the Jews does not allow this impertinence on their part…

It is a fact that the communists are raising their heads everywhere in the Vaucluse… Will there finally be an action against the freemasonry, the communists and the people in the pay of Moscow, as you are doing against the Jews? I have never been a pessimist, but what we are observing here frightens me.

The complaints of Lebon against the administration and the notables continued unabated. An incident dated June 29, 1943, provided another opportunity for Lebon to single out two Vichy officials. He wrote his boss:

On this day, 6/29/43 at 10 a.m., the superintendant, chief of the security police of Avignon called on me. After I arrived, I was shocked to hear his requests:

1- What do I have against Althuil *?

2- What is the basis for stating in my report that Althuil is Jewish?

3- What were the official documents leading me to say that Althuil had broken the law?

4- To surrender the certificates of baptism of Althuil which are in my possession

These questions emanated from Mr. Cord, investigating judge in charge of this matter.

I am taking the liberty to mention the particularly discourteous tone of this official, and this dialogue looked rather like the interrogation of someone accused and seemed to ignore^† the functions you have entrusted me with…

Moreover, I just learned today that the Security police resorted to use a Jew (whose name I still ignore) to keep an eye on my work.

Given these facts, I am asking, Mr. Regional delegate, to inform me whether, in light of this fact, my mission in Vaucluse should be pursued.

Of course, Lebon added a small emotional blackmail to his boss at the end of his letter, but in the background, there is the case of René Altkuil. In a preceding letter of May 30, 1943, Lebon complained to his boss that Madame Altkuil had been allowed to read his report at the police station of the 1st district, by Mr. Roure, secretary to Superintendent Poggi. By showing Lebon’s report to Madame Altkuil, this employee had “divulged a professional secret.” What exactly was the “Altkuil affair”?

We have the report of an investigation initiated by Lebon, dated April 24, 1943, against René Altkuil, manager of the Sans Souci bar, 125, rue Carreterie in Avignon. Lebon states “Althuil is a Jew according to the law of June 2, 1941. For having failed to declare himself, he is therefore punishable by the sanctions enacted by the laws of 6/2/1941 and 12/11/1942.” However, Altkuil had been baptized as a Catholic on June 11, 1924, at the age of 13. Lebon continues:

The investigation permitted to establish that Althuil is indeed Jewish and that he has knowingly attempted to elude the laws against the Jews currently on the books.

The bar he is managing is an agency for the black market and on the day of the investigation he was being prosecuted for the sale of forbidden apéritifs (pastis)…

In conclusion, it is appropriate to:

1- Prosecute Althuil according to the laws of 6/2/1941 and 12/11/1942

2- Require his transfer to a group of foreign workers

This report of Lebon against Altkuil answered the questions of the investigating judge and of the chief of the security police, who do not seem to agree with the SEC. In fact, our verification shows that René Altkuil had been registered from 1941 to 1944, contrary to the claims of Lebon who refused to let go of his prey. Ironically, the Sans Souci, like other bars and cafés of Avignon, served as headquarters for the Avignon mob, some of whom participated in the hunt for the Jews. As to Altkuil, he survived thanks to this passive resistance that Lebon could not stand.

Lebon had claimed “When a request for investigation was communicated to me by Marseille, I would return it, after having filled the objective, with a hand written report and without any conclusion.” The initial report was indeed handwritten; it was then typed in Marseille. A section reserved for Lebon’s boss contained his final decision. However, in all cases, without any exception, Lebon provided his own recommendation. In the quasi totality of his investigations against the Jews, he had asked for one or more of the following sanctions:

1- Put the business under provisional administration

2- Freeze the bank account

3- Prosecute the person for infractions to the Statut des Juifs

4- Cancel the permit of circulation

5- Cancel the stallholder’s license

6- Assign the person to forced residence

7- Send the person to a camp

In a few rare cases, Lebon’s boss sent the report back to be rewritten with even more severe recommendations. In all other cases, the boss countersigned Lebon’s recommendations while specifying the branches of the administration that were to receive a copy of the report for further action.

Lebon lied again when he passed the ball back to his boss.

In his own defense, Lebon tried to reassure the court about his attitude towards the Jews and his patriotism: “I am not afraid to say that, very often, I took the side of the Israelites and that I never hesitated to notify my bosses as well as the prefectural and police authorities of the intrigues of some French individuals who were excessively slavish toward the German occupiers.” Let us shed light on this statement with the help of Lebon’s fourth report of March 1943, which gives a good idea of his state of mind throughout his work.

TECHNICAL INFORMATION

From March 1 to 31, 1943, I have performed 22 investigations broken down as follows:

6 relating to economic Aryanization

10 relating to the statute of the persons

6 others

The distribution of requests is as follows:

CGQJ Marseille	2
Milice Avignon	2
SEC Marseille	3
SEC Vaucluse	15

These investigations resulted in requests from the competent authorities of various measures broken down as follows:

Nomination of APs	6
Administrative internment	5
GTE	1
Inculpation	5

FUNCTIONING OF THE SERVICE

Starting on March 1 when Mr. de Camaret, representative in Vaucluse left his job it is no longer possible for me

1- To use his office

2- To use his telephone

I have to think about using an office and a telephone in an official administration in Avignon.

On the other hand, no AP possesses a place that can be used as an office. I am considering renting 2 or 3 furnished rooms so I can install a telephone.

This latter point remains conditional to the approval of the regional director.

THE DIFFICULTIES – THE NEEDS

I am taking the liberty to bring up once again the lack of means of transportation, a case I have submitted in detail in my previous report.

Since I know a person owning a moped, I am requesting whether the administrative services of our organization would cover the rental fees for this moped.

RELATIONS WITH THE AUTHORITIES

Upon the arrival of the new prefect of Vaucluse [Georges Darbou], I went to explain my duties. I found him an intelligent and understanding official with respect to Jewish affairs. He assured me of all his support.

OTHER EVENTS

During the month, other events have taken up my activity

1) The Rumanian Jew, Isaac Pascal, the object of my report of 12/8/1942, incorporated on 2/15/1943 in the camp of foreign workers has been detached starting on March 1 as a fur worker at Mme. Acton, rue des Fourbisseurs, Avignon. Contract signed between the latter and Mr. Montagu, chief of Group 148 in Le Pontet. The sanction imposed on this Jew is incompatible with this preferential measure taken in his favor. This removes the opportunity for a Frenchman, a father, to avoid being sent to Germany *.

2) A man named Schwarz, Swiss and Aryan subject, is president in Avignon of the Amicale des Volontaires Etrangers whose headquarters are in Limoges. This man is going to great lengths to favor Jewish members of this organization, under the pretext that, having served France during the war, they must be considered as citizens of our country. The blood shed by these foreigners for the defense of our Homeland does not justify in my opinion the favors that some services of the prefecture are inclined to grant them.

3) During my investigations this month, I was able to notice how much the stamp “Juif” on the identity and ration cards of the Jews is rapidly disappearing.

i. Stamp barely readable

ii. Scratching or smearing with a dirty thumb so that the sign of this inferior race will soon disappear from all cards

On this topic, I am proposing that a control be done from time to time by the police and the gendarmerie during their investigations.

For my own use, I have asked and obtained at the prefecture a stamp “Juif,” and since I have purchased an ink pad, I will put the stamp back on the cards of the Jews during my travels.

4) During a visit in Apt, I have registered the agitation of the population concerning the measure (almost a favor) taken toward the Jew Dreyfus (report of 12/30/1942). Indeed, following an internment request by the regional director of the SEC, the prefecture of Vaucluse is leaving him in Apt in forced residence. This half measure is detrimental. On one hand, Dreyfus is the head of the gang of Jews who have swooped down on Apt, he gives the marching orders against the government, he initiates and directs the black market. After I brought it up to M. Autrand at the Prefecture, this measure was canceled and it was proposed that Dreyfus be assigned to a residence in Gordes. Always half measures.

5) I have brought up in one of my recent reports the case of the young Jew, Raphael Cohen, who is not going to Germany because he is a Jew, and spends his time in cafés ranting against France and the Relève.* The case of this Yid^† is not an isolated one. Too many individuals of this inferior race could not care less about the suffering imposed upon the French. And yet, while they accomplish the ordeal imposed on them by defeat, the Jews continue to lead the good life, buy and sell on the black market, work around our laws, and broadcast slogans of hatred against France.

REACTIONS OF THE ARYANS

At the moment, Avignon is inundated with lies, and overtly in cafés and public places, people publicly insult the Maréchal and his government. One cannot find one Frenchman, worthy of this name, to put an end to this campaign of false news whose goals—for the future—are filled with clouds when the worst events could take place.

CONCLUSIONS

From the aforementioned, it stands out that:

Too many officials, and not of the lowest ranking, consciously favor the Jews and too often thwart my action.

I am singling out for the prefecture:

M. Autrand F∴M∴ Head of Division, chief of the Service of Foreigners

M. Pleindoux, Head of the First Division

M. Gilles, Director of the Cabinet of the prefect

In the Police:

M. Bonnet, Superintendant of the south district [of Avignon]

M. Poggi, Superintendent of the north district

The activity of the secretary of the Chief of the Security named Hours has been brought to my attention; I will launch an investigation

In conclusion, almost all the officials in Vaucluse are vassals to the Jews.19

Next to the name of Autrand, the mention “F∴M∴” designates the freemasons, or the “Brothers Three Dots” in the parlance of the far right.²⁰ This notation can also be found in the writings of several collaborators dedicated to the far right ideology, and in particular Jean Mognetti in the list of architects he provided to Henri de Camaret.²¹

The original report by Lebon, written shortly after the beginning of the German occupation, reinforced the image of an ideologue, obsessed by his work against the Jews, who did not hesitate to contradict himself in his own defense: “I am not afraid to say that, very often, I took the side of the Israelites.” Whatever Lebon might say, he projected a fanatical anti-Semitism, which is obvious in all his investigative and monthly reports, and is confirmed by the testimony against him. He hounded individuals like Isaac Pascal, Henri Dreyfus and Raphael Cohen, who will be deported. Isaac Pascal would not survive.

On April 1, 1943, Lebon’s boss saw it fit to send to the prefect a sweetened version of report No. 4. Interestingly, in this censored version, there are no further accusations against the Vichy official in Vaucluse, everything being centered on the “harmful activity” of the Jews.

On the first page of the expunged version of the report, there was a handwritten note by the boss: “Copy of the monthly report of M. Lebon, whose original has likely been sent directly to the P. of Vaucluse. Perhaps, it would be better to do it through our channel.”

The leader of the SEC of Marseille tried to look confident in the prefect and required his subordinate to follow suit. However, he forwarded everything to his own superiors, that brought down criticism upon the prefect. There is no doubt that the prefecture was not fooled by the friendly attitude of the SEC. The remarks by Autrand about the CGQJ in his 1965 book confirm this.²²

Let us return to the attitude of Lebon towards the prefectural administration: “I am not afraid to say that… I never hesitated to notify my bosses as well as the prefectural and police authorities of the intrigues of some French individual excessively servile toward the German occupiers.” As we just saw, it was in fact the opposite that’s true.

It was Lebon who had stated in his report No. 1 of December 1942 that “…the man named Feldmann (Jew) has been instructed by the prefecture to leave Avignon where the occupying authorities are and to go to an unoccupied locality in the département. Who issued this order?…”

In the same report, Lebon had added “Individuals named as dangerous in the Vaucluse administration: M. Autrand, head of the Service of Foreigners, who is the only one who can provide safe-conducts to Jews…” It was not his first show of zeal. Immediately after he took office—which, by the way, coincided with the beginning of German occupation—Lebon’s hostility towards Autrand and the prefecture was echoed up the line by his boss of Marseille to his own leadership in Vichy in a report dated December 10, 1942:

While sending you report No. 1282,… I want to draw your attention to the schemes of the Public Prosecutor in Avignon.

Our inspector, M. Lebon, discovers a Jew Holzmann, sought after by the Paris police as a dangerous individual who on top of it is not registered and has crossed the demarcation line clandestinely.

The police superintendant of Avignon was tipped off and arrested this individual, sending him to the prosecutor’s office. Twenty hours later, the Jew is acquitted on orders of the Prosecutor due to “Lack of evidence.”

This incident deserves a thorough investigation, but I already think that it is unacceptable under the present circumstances that the justice system be a hindrance to the national decontamination task which we are all committed to…

Finally and most importantly, this example is contagious and disastrous.

The information which I have already collected about the mentality of some officials in Avignon indicates that this mentality is clearly pro-Jewish. M. Lamorlette, general secretary of the prefecture, is married to a Deutch daughter who is presumed Jewish (investigation in progress). Mr. Autrand, in charge of Jewish affairs at the prefecture, is deemed favorable to the Jews. Today, we see that the public prosecutor of Avignon is taking a benevolent measure, to say the least, towards a Jew who satisfies all the conditions to remain incarcerated…

I am therefore requesting that this incident be brought to the attention of Monsieur le Commissaire General aux Questions Juives, so that a good example be made to these who might be tempted to sabotage the actions of the government.23

Among others, Lebon also took on Autrand who, according to the reports of the SEC, had changed in the space of a few months; he was now hindering the efforts of Lebon and the CGQJ, and did not even pursue the foreign Jews who had escaped during the deportation of August 1942. He was not the only one amongst the high officials of Vaucluse who passively resisted the CGQJ in the execution of the anti-Jewish measures of Vichy.

The complaints of Lebon and his boss on top of those of other collaborators against these officials triggered the purges of September 16, 1943, when 127 people, including Autrand, were arrested for Gaullism by the occupying authorities and sent off to labor camps.24 Exasperated by this passive resistance of the Vaucluse Vichy administration, the Germans tried to neutralize the prefecture and the establishment and leaned more and more on the “freelancers” of collaboration. One cannot help noticing a de facto alliance—if not of intention—between the SEC and the Germans. These changes will characterize the year 1944. Lebon’s grievances were not limited to Autrand. He sent a note against the police superintendant of Chateaurenard to his superiors.

Fate had it that I was at the central police station on 2/18/43 when the Jew Gutman came in.

If the name of this individual intrigued me and induced me to ask for more details, two things caught my attention.

1- How come identity cards were delivered to these 2 Jews without a flag being raised by their names sounding so little like ours and mostly under the current circumstances where the Jewish question is on the agenda (census mandated by the law of 12/11/1942)

2- Without my intervention and the action that I immediately undertook, these two Jews who had been ignored by the police were about to leave Avignon. How many others have already left?

I do not want to incriminate anybody, but I find it of essential importance that these kinds of things could happen at the moment.

By note No. 36 of today, I am sending to the Superintendant a report concerning this affair where I am asking for legal proceedings according to the laws of 6/2/1941 and 12/2/1942.

Lebon’s boss wrote a question mark in the margin, next to “2 Jews” since the letter seemed to refer to Gutman. A separate report, written by Lebon one day earlier and also sent to Vichy, provided the identity of the 2 Jews in question: Maurice Kaminer and Robert Herscovici who had also received help from the French authorities in Chateaurenard. “It is common knowledge that the mayor and the police superintendant have been subverted by Jewish influence.”* The boss transmitted the notes of his subordinate with his handwritten comments:

Transmitted to M. le prefect of Vaucluse and to M. the Intendant of police * while drawing their attention to the facts uncovered by the inspector of the SEC for the Vaucluse. It is not the first time I observe that the Jewish question is not given, by some elements in the police, the appropriate importance.

Let us go beyond Lebon’s report No. 4, where we read his rantings against Raphael Cohen, and for absolute certainty, we refer to Lebon’s original report (Investigation on the Activity of the Jew Raphael Cohen).

SUMMARY

Jew without a well defined job… he is a barfly; for whom the enlistment in a grouping of workers is imperative…

EXPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION

The Jew Raphael Cohen, 22 years old, catholic, baptized on 12/22/1942 at the Church of Les Carmes in Avignon; his job consists of visiting cafés and bars, where he is making antinational remarks and is poking fun at Aryans who leave for the relief of war prisoners.

Signed Jean Lebon

CONCLUSIONS OF THE SEC DIRECTOR OF MARSEILLE

From the preceding report, it emerges that:

The Jew Cohen is an idle individual who is dangerous to moral order.

Consequently, I am asking Monsieur the prefect of Vaucluse to have him urgently incorporated in a grouping of workers according to decree No. 3.593 of November 25, 1942.²⁵

Raphael Cohen’s late baptism stood out, as the Germans had just arrived in Avignon.

This report was sent to the prefect of Vaucluse, to the regional prefect of Marseille, and to the SEC and CGQJ of Vichy. Obviously Lebon took the initiative of the investigation and concluded that the internment of Raphael Cohen was required. His boss informed the prefect and the higher-ups. Raphael Cohen was interned, then deported.

Once again, Lebon had lied to save his neck. On April 28, 1943, Lebon had also provided a report about Yuda Cohen, deported on convoy 75.

The entire family is not well-disposed towards our country, therefore it is imperative to:

1- Enlist Yuda Cohen and his son Raphael in a G.T.E

2- Strip the children of their French citizenship.

In his report of April 28, 1943, about Victor Revah, the husband of Esther Revah, Lebon wrote:

The Jew Revah is a dubious individual on whom the following sanctions must be imposed:

1- Immediate enlistment in a GTE

2- Repatriation to his country of origin.

For Victor Revah, who was of Serbian origin, “repatriation” meant deportation and death.

Lebon produced tens of reports in the same frame of mind and the same style. It would be sufficient to only change the name and description of the victims. Lebon traveled to Nîmes, Uzès, Pont-St. Esprit, Villeneuve, Arles, Chateaurenard, Tarascon, and to the municipalities of Vaucluse. He was everywhere and did not spare a soul: hundreds of victims, among them the eight brave witnesses for the prosecution, were caught in the web of this hateful and relentless inspector.

Report against Elie Yaffe: “In the course of the investigation, Yaffe and his wife dared criticize overtly the laws against the Jews… It is imperative to rid the national economy of these little foreign swindlers whose exact activity is impossible to verify.”

Report against Moïse Yaffe: “… It is imperative to rid the economy of these undesirable swindlers.” He was particularly hounding the stallholders, amongst them Elie Yaffe and Moïse Yaffe, so much so that, on May 17, 1943, he provided his boss with two lists he had obtained from the prefecture: the list of “Foreign stallholders and peddlers” and that of “French stallholders and peddlers” which included some 68 people.26 Lebon harassed them by having their circulation permits and licenses cancelled and by putting their stocks under provisional administration prior to their liquidation. For him, they represent the dregs of the Jewish population. Is that because the large majority were foreigners living amongst their own tribe, speaking among themselves a strange language, and their French was terrible? He hounded them relentlessly. He proposed internment for many.

The same activity occurred in the Gard. Lebon, a relentless Jew hunter, was on the lookout for the slightest opportunity to harm the Jews. He chased them from their businesses. They tried to redeploy to survive, and some became sales representatives. On July 10, 1943, he had their licenses cancelled, and provided a list of 21 Jewish sales representatives to his boss for action.²⁷ “The needs of their families do not justify this profession” he wrote in his report. He also observed that these licenses had been “delivered or renewed to Jews by the prefecture of the Gard since January 1, 1943.” He was watching the prefecture of the Gard very closely.

The reports filed by Lebon had ugly consequences. The people whom he proposed to be eliminated from the economy lost their jobs; those whose assets he proposed to aryanize were dispossessed and found themselves without any resources; those whom he had proposed be interned were practically all deported.

Overall, Lebon was the representative of a fraudulent ideology. In his thirst for power over the weakened Jews, he was like the gangsters in the service of the Germans. His belonging to the CGQJ provided him with an ideological base.

On February 12, 1943, the SD Aussenkommando (external detachment) in Avignon had asked the prefecture for the list of Jews residing in the département of Vaucluse (“ein namenlistiches Verzeichnis sämtlicher im Departement Vaucluse wohnenden Juden”).28 On February 17, Aimé Autrand responded in the name of the prefect “I must inform you that only the regional prefects have the authority to eventually provide information of this nature.” We can’t help noticing that, in Autrand’s response, there was no polite closing greeting. In the meantime, Lebon was charged by his boss with obtaining the list from the prefecture, which ended in failure, except for the list of stallholders. Autrand resisted. A few months later, on October 4, 1943, the regional delegate of the SEC in Marseille, Raymond Guilledoux, picked up the issue again and wrote directly to the Prefecture of Vaucluse, which had been brought in step by the arrests of September 16, 1943, and the re-shuffling that followed:

OBJECT: List of foreign Jews of the Vaucluse

For a reason of opportunity, and because of the present circumstances, it is absolutely necessary for me to have the list of foreign Jews in the départements placed under our control.

Consequently, I have the honor to ask you to send me this list pertaining to your département as quickly as possible.²⁹

This time, Georges Darbou’s prefecture complied, and the successor of Autrand responded in the affirmative to the regional delegate of the SEC.

In response to your letter cited in reference, I have the honor to include in this letter, the list of foreign Jews presently in residence in my département.

Probably with the tacit agreement of Vichy or even in line with its instructions, the prefecture of Vaucluse was now ready again to sacrifice the foreign Jews of Vaucluse in the name of the “opportunity” mentioned by the regional delegate of the SEC. All the more so since it would be difficult to tie the prefect to the arrests of foreign Jews by the German police, or how it obtained their names, as will be shown in the court procedural files of Charles Palmieri and his Avignon acolytes.

In his deposition of November 18, 1948, after Liberation, the prefect Darbou testified:

I witnessed several times the efforts carried out with persistence and silent fortitude by Pierre Laval to unclench the stranglehold, every day more brutal; and personally, I could cite cases when his vehement interventions and his action in general helped me or my colleagues save Israelites or heads of Resistance, or also French people often blindly arrested for having expressed their feelings against the occupier.30

Once again, foreign Jews were not “worthy of interest.”

In his monthly report No. 29 of April 30, 1944, the regional delegate of the SEC in Marseille unveiled the recipients of the list of Jews in his possession as well as the quid pro quo of his collaboration:

We are flooded with requests for information by the German Jewish affairs, but with the most perfect courtesy, without any unpleasant indiscretions or the lightest pressure or constraint… In general, I am getting all satisfaction from the side of the German Jewish affairs. So much so that immediately after an arrest is operated… the keys are given to me with the full power to dispose of the buildings and the apartments…

As well in agreement with them [German Jewish affairs], I visit them every Thursday morning, in their offices, where we settle verbally the questions whose character does not seem urgent.³¹

The case of Henri Dreyfus clearly showed that Lebon had easy access to the German police.³² A letter sent on December 22, 1943, by the regional delegate of the SEC in Marseille, to the regional prefect of Marseille confirms this:

I have the honor to forward to you the attached list of personnel of the SEC of Marseille authorized to possess and bear a defensive weapon, according to Article 3 of the law of December 2, 1942, in order to obtain from the offices of the Police administration, the required authorizations to bear arms.

Concerning these authorizations which, as I am aware, need to be submitted for approval to the Occupation Authorities, I have the honor to report to you that it is at the instigation of those authorities—who are awaiting them—that I am sending you the attached request.33

A list of seven inspectors of the SEC of the Marseille region, among them Jean Lebon of Avignon, was attached to this letter. On March 9, 1944, the director of the SEC for both zones gave his agreement for the weapon permit. The authorization was received at Avignon on March 15, 1944, and as we have seen, Lebon, armed with a revolver, was among the hoodlums leading the great roundup of March 29.

Given the mounting disillusionment of the Germans, it is clear that the head of the German police of Avignon, in tune with his boss in Marseille, was anxious to arm his most loyal and aggressive collaborators, miliciens, hoodlums, “French Gestapo,” and PPF. There is therefore no doubt that Lebon was working in close coordination with the German police. It would not be surprising if this were also the case with his boss and colleagues of the SEC in Marseille.

Lebon was in good company. His boss Guilledoux wrote in his report of May 31, 1944, what a great man the head of the Jewish Section of the German police was:

I must recognize once again the magnificent conduct of Kommandeur Bauer in executing the measures the opportunity of which I cannot comment upon, since they come from the High German Authorities, his chiefs.

This admiration for Bauer is surprising because he had put in place a Jew hunting network of hooligans and outlaws, which spanned the entire prefectural region of Marseille and sometimes beyond.

Moreover, in a note dated April 27, 1944, to Director of the SEC for the free zone in Paris about “The bearing of arms by the personnel of the delegations,” Lebon’s boss wrote: “…MM. Lebon and Regereau are already armed, the first by the prefecture of Vaucluse, the second by the P.P.F…”³⁴

Apparently, Regereau, a Marseille colleague of Lebon, was also a man trusted by the PPF with the approval of his boss at the SEC. As in other parts of France, the rogues of the SEC of Marseille went wild and worked hand in hand with the gangs of hoodlums.³⁵ The prefectures were marginalized for the benefit of the German police and the thugs at their service. Lebon became more radical and played into the hands of the Nazis while many others who had been favorable to them had already moved away.

Ironically, on March 29, 1944, the same day of the roundup against the Jews, Lebon was required to provide the proof that he was an Aryan, while he had never stopped requiring the same proof from others. On April 14, he responded to his boss: “In response to your letter mentioned in the margin, I have the honor to provide you with the documents which prove in an undeniable way my Aryan origin. For smooth running, I would ask you to confirm receipt by return.”

Two key documents destroy Jean Lebon’s alibi. His alibi situated him in Marseille during the day and night of March 28, 1944. The notice of information of the special superintendant of the Renseignements Généraux, dated March 30, 1944, specified that the arrests of Jews took place during the night of March 29 to March 30, 1944, and not one day earlier.

The German authorities conducted a vast police operation in Avignon during the night of March 29 to 30, 1944. This operation, started with a roundup in a café named Palais de la Bière, and continued with arrests in the homes.

During this roundup, a great number of people of the Jewish race were arrested. The exact number of people arrested is still unknown. According to public rumors, it would be approximately 90.36

This document points to an apparent contradiction, as the witnesses were unclear about the exact date; some place the roundup on March 28 and others on March 29. Lebon took advantage of this ambiguity to brandish his alibi stating that he was not present on March 28. However, in another document, the interrogation on September 18, 1944, of Jean Gibelin, a member of the Palmieri gang, clarified the situation once and for all refuting Jean Lebon’s alibi.

…Towards the end of March, the Avignon agent, Lucien Blanc, came to the office [of Palmieri in Marseille] with a list of approximately sixty Israelites to be arrested in the area. This decided Charles [Palmieri] to make the raid together with the SD of Avignon.

Charles, Alfred [the brother of Charles Palmieri], Simon, Francois Heiter, and the Avignon [French] agents participated in this operation. The operation lasted two days and yielded the arrest of approximately 40 people from our lists; they were all turned over to the SD of Avignon.³⁷

There were two days of roundups, on March 28 and on March 29. This practically lifted the veil of doubt about the dates cited by the witnesses as well as by Jean Lebon, and weakened his defense. Jean Lebon was indeed present at Avignon on the evening of March 29, and had no alibi. He was now face-to-face with the witnesses.

Had Lebon finally taken the “law” into his own hands in his anti-Jewish fervor? If so, the increasing half-heartedness of the prefecture would paradoxically have helped his pro-German drift.

Pretty late, Lebon took some—perhaps naïve—precautions, in his writing about his relations with the Gestapo. On June 13, 1944, seven days after the landing in Normandy, he wrote in his report to his boss the location of his office: “As you ordered, I contacted the police of the AO,* which gave me a list of 50 names and addresses. Since no key had been provided and on the advice of the G— I went to the Quartieramt^†…” At this late date, it was ill advised to write Gestapo in full.

From then on events followed quickly, and on July 7, 1944, Lebon’s boss informed him that the Secretary General instructed him to broadcast the following text: “Agents of the CGQJ, stay at your post without taking care of anything! Should instructions be necessary, be assured that I will give them in due course.” On August 17, 1944, 12 days ahead of the liberation of Marseille, the regional delegate send a letter to Lebon that began: “I have the honor to inform you that you are relieved of your job as inspector starting August 31, 1944. In accordance with the law, you are entitled to accrued benefits and to one month’s advance notice.”

Lebon wasn’t waiting at the door of the SEC in Marseille for the re-opening of the offices after Liberation, like some of his Paris colleagues.³⁸ He was arrested in Chateaurenard on August 29, 1944, without the full benefit of his month of advance notice. On October 4, 1944, the police superintendant, Marcel Sancelme, described the last weeks of Lebon on the run, in his statement countersigned by the CDL and the Municipal Council of Chateaurenard.

… We conducted a complete investigation of Jean Lebon … functionary of the CGQJ of Marseille, arrested in Chateaurenard on August 29, 1944, and transferred to Arles on September 13, 1944.

According to the new municipality and the CDL, the activity of the named was negative in Chateaurenard,* where he sought refuge at the end of the month of July or the beginning of the month of August, in an isolated farm. He was going out frequently at night on a motorcycle, but starting August 15, the date of the allied landing in the southern France, he stopped going out. According to public rumor, he was expecting to be arrested at any moment. He had not hidden his activity in the CGQJ, which provided him with some promotions…³⁹

From Arles, Lebon was transferred to the Ste Anne prison and handed over to the Court of Justice in Avignon.

At the end of this examination, one question remains open: why did the Court of Justice not even try once to obtain the administrative documents produced during Lebon’s tenure? It was peculiar because, during his confrontation with Henri Kohn, Lebon had mentioned the existence of these documents in Marseille. During the same period, other Courts of Justice, for instance in Paris, had examined thousands of documents during the investigation phase of the trials against members of the SEC and other branches of the CGQJ.

This omission was indicative of a minimalist form of justice which spared Jean Lebon the death penalty. The judicial apparatus of the Liberation was caught between two contradictory pressures. The new state realized that in order to govern, it must calm the people and restore a more serene justice, while the CDL demanded, in the name of public opprobrium, that actions be taken against the collaborators—big and small. In this conflict between the central power and the new local leaders, the needs for justice for the Jews was not a priority since they were not demanding it and French society was still steeped in anti-Semitic reflexes that had blossomed before and during the war. It is easy to imagine, on the other hand, Lebon’s fate, if his victims had been Resistance fighters. For the Jews of 1944, Liberation was slow in coming.

To conclude, we return to Jean Lebon. In the darkness that surrounds his character, one case deserves to be mentioned. On June 17, 1943, his boss sent him a request for an investigation, triggered by the SEC of Vichy against Jane Mayrargues of Carpentras, following a denunciation by her tenant, Mme. Latard.⁴⁰ Lebon went to work, and on July 27, 1943, he wrote a report that is surprisingly conciliatory in its attitude towards Jane Mayrargues.

From the investigation, it appears that:

1- The revenue from her apartment buildings constitute the sole resource of the Jewess Mayrargues.

2- This person—who is handicapped—constantly needs a home nurse, Mme. Boyac, who lives in her home with her children and has little living space. This justifies the request from Mme. Latard to leave the apartment.

3- Moreover, the private life of Mme. Latard who is said to receive night visits * is the main reason for her eviction.

Now, Lebon’s boss in Marseille took a tougher stand, depriving a Jewish handicapped woman of her revenues: “Consequently, I am asking the director of the AE [Aryanisation Economique] to place the assets of the woman Mayrargues under the control of an AP.”

Could Lebon have been capable of some human feeling, at least once, after all?

____________________

* An officiating minister is a non ordained member of the congregation who serves as rabbi.

* Note that the PQJ did not report to the CGQJ but to the national police.

† BCA: Bataillon de Chasseurs Alpins, Mountain Battalion.

‡ RTA: Régiment de Tirailleurs Algériens, Algerian Infantry Regiment.

* Here again, we see a confusion between various units of the German police, including collaborators. This issue will be clarified in a subsequent section.

† It is not the witness but her daughter who was hit by Lebon.

** This is probably Roger Alphonse Villard.

* AJ 38 Series, Archives of the CGQJ, Archives Nationales, Paris.

* Ration category “T” is reserved for individuals who have a physically taxing job.

* The underlining and the question mark in this note were done by Lebon.

* The two words were underlined by Jean Lebon.

* This is René Altkuil and not Althuil.

† The two expressions were underlined by Jean Lebon.

* A worker being sent to Germany would allow a French prisoner in Germany to come back; Lebon implies that Isaac Pascal should be sent to Germany.

* The Relève, the relief, is the replacement of prisoners of war by able-bodied people who are sent to work in Germany.

† Lebon used the French term “youpin.”

* Originally, “… sont enjuivés.”

* This the Vichy government Superintendant of Police.

* Autorités d’Occupation (Occupation Authorities).

† The Intendant.

* This is obviously misinformed to the light of the complaint of Lebon against the police superintendant of Chateaurenard for helping Jews.

* Underlined by Jean Lebon.