Hunting Down the Jews

A State-Sponsored Network of Profiteers of Jewish Assets

The aryanization of an estate, the Domaine de la Gardine, through its transfer to a provisional administrator and its sale to a buyer, and later the return of the assets to the original owner, are at the same time typical and exceptional. Such a “double success” was unusual. The reality of profiteering will become clear, as we discuss additional examples. The need for a systematic in-depth study of the spoliations in Vaucluse, which has yet to be done, remains.

There was a master, who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress and built a watchtower…¹

This is the beginning of the parable of the Wicked Vineyard Laborers which Gaston Brunel cites in his 1980 book, The Guide of Vine-growers and Cellars of the Côtes du Rhône,^* where he informs us that, after Liberation, he too constructed a tower at La Gardine, thus creating its castle-like appearance, but he remains silent about the history of the estate before Liberation.²

The case of La Gardine, at the time an estate producing wine with the “appellation contrôlée” of Châteauneuf du Pape, spanned both the “reigns” of de Camaret and of Lebon. De Camaret had in Châteauneuf du Pape a reliable informer, himself a wine-grower wary of the purity of the land. According to the bill of sale, this property had belonged, since July 3, 1933, “to Mme. [Marie] Esther Gommez-Pereire, the spouse of Alfred Isaac Rodrigues Pereire, man of letters, Knight of the Legion of Honor, with whom she lives in Paris, rue du Faubourg St. Honoré No. 35.”3 In 1941, Alfred Pereire had been denied a special dispensation from the measures against the Jews, which he had requested by invoking the services rendered to France by his famous family, since the time of Louis XV, and personally rendered by him to the Bibliothèque Nationale, as a volunteer librarian, curator, and patron.⁴

The Domaine de la Gardine, managed by a master farmhand for the benefit of Marie Pereire, was confiscated by de Camaret and taken under the provisional administration of Georges Bonjean in July 1942. The property was then unsuccessfully put up for sale on May 29, 1943, following an auction organized by M. Charles Rivollier, notaire in Châteauneuf du Pape and mayor of the village. Then, several candidates turned up amid intrigues and envy.

First, there was Joseph Casimir Charrasse, a cardboard manufacturer in Orange, member of the PPF, and an informer to the Palmieri gang, who wanted the “Jewish” agricultural property of La Gardine. Charrasse then became the target of schemes by Bonjean, who proposed as a buying partner, his own brother-in-law, Roger de Bimard, land owner, president of the Legion at Châteauneuf du Pape, and a member of the de Camaret network. The ploy did not work. Probably under pressure from Bonjean, the prefecture of Vaucluse refused to grant Charrasse a permit to farm, because he did not have professional experience.

After Charrasse complained, Jean Lebon was assigned to investigate. Indignant, he wrote in his report of September 30, 1943: “Monsieur Charrasse, Aryan, known and respected and with money behind him, looked like a serious buyer.”⁵ In fact the cardboard manufacturer was so drawn to the property that he promised to change his profession and become a wine-maker for the rest of his life. Jean Lebon, a hoodlum from the SEC, came forward as a guarantor of Charrasse, an accomplice of Palmieri. But the Domaine de la Gardine was already sold in July 1943.

Charrasse, the cardboard manufacturer, did not measure up to the new buyer, Gaston Brunel, the descendant of a long line of wine-makers since 1670. On May 28, 1943, Jean Lebon was charged by the CGQJ of Marseille to investigate Brunel, domiciled at 1 Impasse de la Gravière in Avignon, “candidate to buy the following Jewish asset: Domaine of La Gardine, Châteauneuf du Pape (Vaucluse).” Jean Lebon delivered the result of his investigation in June 1943:

Monsieur Brunel is well known in Avignon and enjoys an excellent reputation; he would be desirous of buying the property of La Gardine, in order to develop it. He has the money; half of it is his own, half would be lent by the Comptoir National d’Escompte de Paris with the Crédit Foncier.

However, it should be noted that this eventual buyer does not seem prepared to buy this property for fear of being subsequently dispossessed;* these are his words.

Jean Lebon underscored the hesitation of Gaston Brunel, who was clearly in the know as a buyer. Was he hesitating in order to be asked twice, and thus lower the price? The fact remains that on July 10, 1943, the Domaine de la Gardine passed from the hands of the state, which had confiscated it, to Gaston Brunel for the amount of 1,250,000 francs. One can understand the anger of Charrasse when he realized that the coveted bargain had slipped through his fingers.

In the office of the Conservation des Hypothèques,^† the property was described as follows. It spanned “61 hectares, 10 of which planted with vines, appellation contrôlée of Châteauneuf du Pape, four hectares of arable land and 47 hectares of woods.” It included “master houses with all modern conveniences, central heating, telephone, electricity and running water; a farmer’s house, shed, hanger, stable, sheepfold, cellar, and vats.” In the cellar, there were “18 casks of wine,” equal to 4,104 liters, at 228 liters per cask. The vineyard was already productive. La Gardine was already in the land registry of 1763, which mentioned the “Maitairie^‡ de la Gardine.” Its wine was awarded a prize in 1868 in Montpellier where it was granted “a silver medal…for a wine which had four colors, 13^o of alcohol and which was mellow, very fine and very distinguished.”⁶

Everything was fine until Liberation, and exactly as Brunel had feared, the Jewish owner returned. Things should have gone like clockwork for the legitimate owner because “on January 5, 1943, 17 allied governments and the national committee of General de Gaulle signed a solemn declaration which held as null and void all the transfers of properties or rights carried out in occupied countries” and on November 12, 1943, an ordinance in Algiers reiterated this declaration.⁷ Moreover, a new ordinance of August 9, 1944, prescribed the immediate restoration of republican legality, as the territory was liberated. The laws of Vichy were cancelled. Only a “small” problem remained: the decrees of application of the ordinances would drag because of the “complications” linked to restitution in a case like the Domaine de la Gardine. It had been easy to dispossess the Pereire family. But the new owner was handled with kid gloves, although he was well aware that La Gardine was snatched from a Jew, as it was recorded in the bill of sale at the Conservation des Hypothèques on July 10, 1943.

After having put in place the application decrees for the simplest cases, the government finally promulgated, on April 21, 1945, an application decree canceling the dispossessions carried out by the Germans and the Vichy government, including commercial real estate placed under provisional administration, and then sold.

This ordinance adopted a very simple solution. Article 17 gave the plaintiff the choice between the Civic and the Commercial Court. The procedure was an accelerated one, the référé or summary proceedings, gave the judge the power of decision on form and content. Any appeal had to be filed within 15 days from the date of the decision. The president of the tribunal could designate any useful expert, and all this at no cost to the plaintiff.

Article 4 stated “The buyer or the buyers are considered as possessors in bad faith with respect to the dispossessed owner. They can in no way invoke the right of retention. They must return the natural, industrial and civil fruits starting on the date of the nullification…” The “bad faith” clause was automatically assumed in this article because the buyer could not have ignored that the assets had belonged to a Jew. This was clearly the case of Gaston Brunel.

For that matter, the general report of the Matteoli mission had qualified the spoliation of Jewish assets as “civil theft”—an expression that was both eloquent and surprising.8 As soon as the decree-law was promulgated, the Civic Court of Orange was requested to settle the La Gardine case. The buyer had to return the property “whose origin he could not have ignored” and reimburse the profits wrongfully made. The law allowed the buyer to recover the amount paid at the time of purchase, namely 1,250,000 francs in this case. However (Article 6), “… Out of the amount to be returned to the buyer, there will be, for the benefit of the Treasury, a deduction of 10 p 100 of its acquisition [price], when it was made in bad faith.”

Article 6 also stated that “…the brokerage commissions paid either to advertisement agents, to real estate agents or to business agents of any kind by the CGQJ or by provisional administrators, will be reimbursed by these after deducting gross fees for which they are required to provide justification… The same will apply to honoraria received by experts, architects or others, who have lent their help to these preliminary expert operations and hence have permitted or facilitated the despoiled assets being put up for sale.”

Article 16 specified that the state would reimburse the salaries of provisional administrators, because they were designated by the state.

Who are the “table companions” of the spoliation of La Gardine? Of course, Bonjean, the AP who received a salary from July 1942 to July 1943, de Camaret and Lebon who supervised the process, Rivollier, notaire in Châteauneuf du Pape, André Pochy, furniture appraiser in Avignon, the printer of the auction posters, the newspapers, etc. The ads were placed in L’Eclair, the newspaper where de Camaret worked, in Le Nouvelliste, in Les Tablettes du Soir, and in Le Bulletin du Palais. The costs of publicity amounted to 11,000 francs, and the fees of M. Rivollier to 1,500 francs, but there are no traces of such reimbursement. Perhaps the state had other fish to fry than to render unto Pereire that which was Pereire’s.

As to Gaston Brunel, he had to pay the owner 280,000 francs, which corresponded to the exploitation of the estate and a lump sum for the use, according to the principle of Article 4 and 6 of the law of April 21, 1945.

Then, an amicable agreement took place between Gaston Brunel and Esther Marie Gommez Pereire. In a final agreement, the property was sold back to Gaston Brunel by Mme. Pereire for 1,250,000 francs, the same amount as the original purchase of 1943. This was surprising for two reasons. The first because the value of the property at the time of the initial sale from the state to Brunel was probably significantly higher than the sale price, given that the estate had been auctioned with only one competitor who stopped after an offer of 1,200,000 francs against a starting bid of 1,000,000 francs. The buyers weren’t exactly queuing up at M. Rivollier’s office. The second reason is that, between 1943 and 1945, the franc had lost approximately 45% of its value, which brought the 1945 price to 687,500 francs of 1943 9 (see Appendix A).

It looked like a bargain for the buyer. He took care of his vineyard himself, and did not have to face the difficulties of the landowner of the Parable of the Tenants.¹⁰ Did Brunel know the rest of the parable, citing only the beginning? Indeed, after having erected the tower, the master:

… let his vineyard to laborers, and went to a far away country. And the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the laborers that they might receive the fruit of it. And the laborers took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first time, and they did unto them likewise. But last of all, he sent to them his son, saying: They will revere my son. But when the laborers saw the son, they said among themselves, this is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the master of the vineyard comes, what will he do unto those laborers? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other laborers who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

Jesus said unto them: Did you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof. And whoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken, but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spoke of them. But when they sought to lay their hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

“He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other laborers who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.” Was the Holocaust written into a parable?

Again in Châteauneuf du Pape, the domaine de l’Hers and two of his residents, Henri and Victor Goldblum, attracted the attention of the small network of vigilant notables. Neighbors of the Domaine de la Gardine, in an out-of-the-way area of the village, the Goldblum brothers were two more undesirables in the eyes of the “guardians of the land,” Mayor Rivollier, de Bimard and Louis Raynaud,* the eyes and the ears of de Camaret in Châteauneuf.

The fact is that, on August 25, 1941, Autrand’s office was preparing a “list (established after verification of the census provided by the municipalities of the département) of the individuals presumed Jewish who have not registered according to the law of June 2, 1941.”¹¹ The list in question included 22 names; among them Henri and Victor Goldblum, designated as Jews by mayor Rivollier, according to Autrand’s request.

On September 12, 1941, the director of the CGQJ in Vichy asked the prefecture for an explanation to be provided before October 1. On September 30, one day before the deadline, the Autrand division reported that 6 people, including the Goldblum brothers, “have signed a sworn statement, stating that they are not Jewish.”12

The CGQJ reacted quickly, and on October 8, the answer was clear: “…the sworn statements provided by the individuals…Henri and Victor Gold-blum…attesting that they do not belong to the Jewish race are insufficient to excuse them from the registration mandated by the law… They need to justify that two of their grandparents and they, themselves, belonged to a religion other than the Israelite religion before June 25, 1940.” That ended the discussion, since the Goldblum brothers did not have a single Gentile grandparent, and so they were recorded in the first census of the Vaucluse.

On November 14, 1941, Henri Goldblum informed the prefecture that his brother Victor had left the village, but this did not prevent Autrand and his successor from keeping Victor Goldblum in the census until its last update in May 1944.

This was not the end of it. The Domaine de l’Hers, a beautiful wine-producing estate, next to La Gardine, caught the eye of de Camaret who pursued the issue with Lebon. In a letter of August 12, 1942, about the issue: “Investigation of the property of the Jew Henri Goldblum, Domaine de l’Hers in Châteauneuf du Pape,” de Camaret asked Henri Goldblum for the date he bought the Domaine and for the name of the notaire, and whether he farmed it or gave it in tenancy.¹³ On August 14, 1942, Henri Goldblum responded and mentioned the Terrier family as owners, a fact confirmed by de Camaret on August 19. In spite of the mention of the Terrier family, de Camaret wrote his boss in Marseille, on March 18, 1943, that he continued his “Investigation about the properties of Jews—Domaine de l’Hers,” this time without mentioning Goldblum or Terrier:

Monsieur Lebon, inspector of the SEC, has compiled a report concerning this property, where he concludes that it must be put under provisional administration.

I am proposing to designate M. Georges Bonjean (3, avenue de la Violette, Avignon) who appears particularly qualified to take care of this Domaine which is adjacent to the Domaine de la Gardine, which he is already in charge of.¹⁴

But this case did not move further, and the property did not change hands.

We know today that several plots that make up the Domaine de l’Hers had been bought between October 21, 1937, and March 1, 1940, by Stanislas Terrier in the name of his underaged sons—Christian, Bernard and Georges, born in Switzerland in 1918, 1920, and 1922, respectively. Stanislas himself was born in Geneva on November 1, 1890. The purchases had all been concluded at the office of the almighty Charles Rivollier.15

But actually, Stanislas Terrier was the brother of Henri and Victor Goldblum.¹⁶ He kept the Goldblum name until the beginning of the thirties, when he arranged for an “adoption” by the Terrier family of Geneva. He also converted to Christianity at that time. Nevertheless, the laws on Aryanization of Jewish assets applied to Stanislas Terrier and his sons. This information probably came from Rivollier who knew the relationship between Stanislas, Henri and Victor; then it must have made its way amongst the members of the Châteauneuf establishment, and from there to de Camaret, always on the lookout for a good opportunity to serve the notables.

However, a small problem came up: the legitimate Jewish owners were Swiss citizens, a fact that limited the reach of the anti-Jewish measures. A Swiss provisional administrator could eventually be designated, but the property could not be sold.¹⁷ It was quite possible that the CGQJ of Marseille was backing down from a complicated procedure which would not yield any benefit or that it did not want to touch assets it knew were protected. The fact remains that the Domaine de l’Hers was untouched throughout the duration of the war.

The frustrations of Henri de Camaret’s bosses, the administrator of the provisional administrators, and later, a provisional administrator himself, were probably linked to the number of properties for which no buyer could be found. Despite the relentlessness of de Camaret, d’Ornano and Lebon, a significant number of seized Jewish properties remained under provisional administration for too long and were finally declared unsellable. A “certificate of deficiency” was then issued. This “unfortunate” situation, which was the cause of stress between the CGQJ of Marseille and that of Avignon, was not limited to the Vaucluse and seems to have become widespread, to wit several letters, the first one dated at the beginning of April 1943, and sent by Louis Pimpaneau, the assistant general director of the CGQJ.

Generally speaking, I had the opportunity to notice that, except for a few unfortunately too rare cases, too large a number of provisional administrators still consider their mandate as a sinecure and do not meet my expectations.

They are losing sight of their mission which is not to restrict themselves to managing a Jewish business, but to get it Aryanized.

As a result, the Aryanization trails behind and for the remunerations being calculated for an Aryanization performed within normal delays, the amount pocketed reaches numbers out of proportion with the work done and the responsibilities involved.

In order to remedy this state of affairs, I have decided to take the following measure:

“Starting with the seventh month of management, every remuneration will automatically be reduced by 50%, being clearly understood that the provisional administrator must, in accordance with my instructions, draw the entire amount and deposit the difference to account 611 at the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignation in Clermont-Ferrand”…18

Pimpaneau pinned the problem on the provisional administrators, who of course had everything to gain in letting the sale drag, as long as they were paid and not compelled to too big an effort. This circular memo was intended to whiplash the team into action.

A letter from Lebon’s boss dated February 16, 1944, revealed the hidden motive of the “rush for provisional administration.”

As a follow up to our recent conversation, I would be grateful if you would send me—marked “Private”—the documentation allowing me to take on the case of the APs who have been dismissed in Vaucluse for the benefit of people from the Gard (name, address, business name, date of their dismissal, official reason invoked, for whose benefit, eventually also family ties or friendship relations with who you know).

Finally, I most interested in the cases of unsold enterprises.

I understand, indeed, the profit that may result, for some, from the method, and I am desirous to narrow down the origin of the “light that will enlighten you.”^*¹⁹

“Family ties or friendship relations” of the APs—rather than competence—were not expected to encourage speedy sales of Jewish assets. Robert Carayol, subordinate of Pimpaneau and director of the CGQJ for the free zone (regions of Clermont-Ferrand, Limoges, Lyon, Marseille, Nice, and Toulouse) also noticed a “conspiracy” of notaires regarding the Aryanization of Jewish assets.

In numerous cases, Aryanization is delayed by the lack of good will of the notaires designated by the President of the Chamber of Notaires.

This obstruction has sometimes been a systematic and generalized characteristic… It often looks like it is the response to a watchword.

Consequently, it is recommended that the regional directors end without delay the procedure currently used in the selection of notaires.

Are we really witnessing a conspiracy of the notaires? A small number, like M. Geoffroy, did their best to help some Jews, who had been their clients before the war, by hampering the sale through procedural maneuvering. But this small number doesn’t explain everything. Did the notaires, who were cautious members of the establishment, simply realize that it was not easy to sell Jewish assets? Indeed, the inability to buy some of the properties with cash-in-hand and the eventual return of the victims discouraged potential buyers who were careful with their money.

During the session of the CDL regarding the Chamber of Notaires on January 27, 1945, M. Geoffroy, named president of the Chamber of Notaires at Liberation, declared: “In their majority, the notaires, without displaying a collaborating spirit towards the Germans, remained favorable to the Pétain regime.”20 Of course, their fees might have had something to do with it.

This situation, prevalent in the Vaucluse, was also found on a national scale, if one believes what the CGQJ circulars say.²¹

According to a report by Jean Lebon dated April 1, 1943, Samuel Garson, born in Oran in 1888, was married to Zohara, née Bettan, in 1890. They had four children, and they jointly owned a ready-to-wear garment store for men at 60, rue Carnot in Avignon, and they lived at 26, rue du Chapeau Rouge. They also owned “rental and business buildings” at 22 and 24, rue Carreterie, at 26, 28, and 30, rue du Chapeau Rouge, and at 67, rue Bonneterie. Except for their store and home, the other buildings were rented out; they yielded a gross revenue of approximately 50,000 francs per year. They paid 6,000 francs per year for the rental of their store at 60, rue Carnot.²²

The report concluded: “The investigation has revealed no infraction to the Statute of the Jews by Garson, he is known as an honest tradesman, his war wound and his pension justify no exemption, it is imperative to place his business and his buildings under provisional administration.”

De Camaret was chosen as provisional administrator (administrateur provisoire or AP) on May 17, 1943.²³ On May 26, 1943, he warned M. Marchais, building manager, about the new dispositions: “You will have to contact me for all questions related to these buildings, and to pay only to me, the amounts of the rents.” These rents were feeding the checking accounts opened in the name of the CGQJ by de Camaret, and contributed to paying for the expenses incurred by the provisional administrators, in the same way as revenues from other buildings.

In February 1944 Bonnet, a man from Nîmes, became AP of the Garson store at 60, rue Carnot. Was Bonnet one of those from the Gard, favored by “family ties or friendship relations with who you know,” as mentioned in the aforementioned note by Lebon’s boss?

The fact remained that the assets of the Garson family remained unsold, and a deficiency was declared on June 5, 1944. However, in the Garson case, as in most other cases, de Camaret “had just done his job” a fact for which the court expressed little interest.

René David owned a canned food plant in Carpentras.24 On February 14, 1942, Louis de Serre de Saint-Roman was named provisional administrator by decree in the Journal Officiel. On September 5, 1942, he was replaced by Jean Gaugler who remained in that position until April 28, 1944. On October 20, 1944, René David wrote:

Due to the size of my sales, their salary was 7,400 francs per month; of course, as soon my business was taken over by these individuals, my sales dropped to zero, because I had refused to collaborate.

The manufacturing plant had sales of 3,391,706 Francs in 1941! René David added “My business was put up for sale by Gaugler, but it could not be sold due to the lack of buyer.” A note of April 28, 1944, in the Registry of Commerce by René David informed that “Jean Gaugler, provisional administrator, declares in the name of René David: the Cessation of all professional activity.”

René David also owned 50 or so shares of the Société Anonyme des Etablissements Sautel in Mazan. These shares, which entitled him to a position of delegate-administrator of this company, were sold to Sautel himself by Gaugler for the amount of 50,000 francs. At Liberation, Sautel did not release his grasp that easily, and on September 16, 1944, he wrote to René David “These shares are kept at your disposal in exchange for the payment of the price which Monsieur Gaugler must have provided you with an accounting for, if the sale which was effected has been nullified.” If René David wanted to recover the shares that were stolen from him, he could always buy them back!

In his declaration of despoiled assets, René David wrote:

On the other hand, Gaugler never accounted for the proceeds of this sale and kept the money for himself, probably in order to pay his own salary which amounted to 7,400 francs per month.

Consequently, I demand the immediate restitution of my shares, as I deem with good reason that it is scandalous to see how buyers of dispossessed assets keep for themselves assets which they could acquire only by becoming receivers of stolen goods and accomplices of the thieves of dispossessed assets.

While I hope for a speedy answer, I must express my saddened feelings.

While René David was going to great lengths to recover what belonged to him and to restart his ransacked business, Gaugler was already on the run.

In the rural France of those days, where the cattle trade was closely tied to farmland culture, the Statute of the Jews raised the hope of eliminating competition. Monsieur Jean Bonafous, manufacturer of fruit and vegetable packaging in Cavaillon, “veteran 1914/1918, Legionnaire No. 213 278,” expressed this sentiment when he wrote on December 5, 1941, an inflamed four-page letter to Xavier Vallat, General Commissioner for Jewish questions. Bonafous advocated in favor of his son-in-law, “Jean Gaubert, a native of the Ariège, of French extraction, Catholic. Before the war, he was practicing modestly with his father who continues it, the trade of dairy cows.” He added:

I did fix up for him in one of the facilities at my business: a stable where he set up his trade of dairy cows, and modestly shuttling between Cavaillon and the Ariège, he would bring every time 3 or 4 cows which he sold at reasonable prices that were far below those set by the Jews in the area. This was a severe mistake which prompted these gentlemen whose fiefdoms are the Vaucluse and the adjoining départements to focus their hatred on him.

Then a law was enacted to regulate the profession. On October 21, 1940, he applied for a professional card… It was refused for no known reason…

In the mean time, Monsieur Charles Levy, a schemer refugee from Belfort associated himself with the Chabran brothers, sheep traders in Cavaillon…

Neither had been authorized to add to their trade of sheep that of cows, but [they] carried on anyway without being bothered… they were able to sell 181 cows and 66 calves.

In such a state of affairs, my son-in-law continued his small trade, which lasted until June 10 [1940], the day when the intervention of the Jew Walch, the grand master behind the stage at the Purchasing bureau for cattle and meat sharing in Vaucluse (GARBVV), forbade my son-in-law from continuing his trade and seized four cows and three calves…

On October 20, 1941, I confirmed to the prefect…that Charles Levy was continuing to exercise his profession and had carried out his audacity to the point of settling in front of the gendarmerie…

You see, Monsieur [Vallat], in Vaucluse, the Jews still are the masters and they make it known. If one does not put it in order, they will continue for a long time…

According to statistics, 97% of the trade of dairy cows is occupied [sic] by Jews. I think that after the enforcement of the law, there will be room for French men without any distinction of département and that to your kindness I am calling on, my son-in-law will be indebted for having his place.25

In fact, Charles Levy had been authorized on November 12, 1941, by the regional delegate of the CGQJ to transfer his business from Belfort to Cavaillon. He was practicing his trade legally, whether Bonafous liked it or not. However, the law had just changed. On December 11, 1941, Xavier Vallat wrote to the prefect:

I have the honor to let you know that, by application of the law of November 17, 1941, modifying Article 5 of the Law of June 2, 1941, the person in question will have to immediately cease his activity in this branch which is henceforth forbidden to him.

The modified article 5 indeed contained a new interdiction, that of “Trade in grain, cereals, horses, cattle.” Among others the law touched Samuel Mossé of Orange, and Bigard and Walch of Avignon. These two companies were rapidly put under provisional administration and sold.²⁶

On February 3, 1943, Lebon took on the Sokolowski family. In his report about Icko, the father, he wrote: “SUBJECT: The Sokolowski is brought to our attention as an agent of Anglo-Saxon propaganda and as an important trader of dry goods against food supplies.” A few paragraphs later, he reported the failure of his investigation: “The inquiry has not allowed to verify the veracity of the information provided about the activity of Solokolowski both on the national level and on the economic level. This verification would require a pretty long tailing. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to think that the frequent travel which his stallholder’s job allows him, could uniquely facilitate his trade and black market operations.” In spite of the absence of any proof, Lebon concluded in the report which he sent to the prefecture of Vaucluse:

From the aforementioned explanation, it appears:

1. that Sokolowski is a Polish Jew

2. that he was naturalized in November 1938

3. that his commercial activity is suspect

4. that he and his family constitute undesirable elements within the French nation

5. that it is not with a turnover of 120,000 Francs, (with a profit of 15,000 Francs) that he can maintain such a family where 3 children are studying and that he has found the means to buy a 50,000 Francs property.

Consequently, I am asking the prefect of Vaucluse, with copy to the regional prefect, that the decree of naturalization of Sokolowski be reversed, that this Jew be brought to the attention of the economic police and that his circulation beyond the limits of the city of Avignon be immediately prohibited; at the moment when restrictions are becoming progressively more cruel, it is unacceptable and dangerous that Jews are able to find supplies as they please.27

In a new sign of disagreement with the SEC, Aimé Autrand, the addressee for the implementation of this request, wrote with a pencil “?Why?” with two question marks, next to the third conclusion.

On April 22, 1943, Lebon wrote a report about Saltiel (Jacques) Yenni. He proposed to cancel his registration on the Registre du Commerce and his travel permit, and to enlist him in a Groupement de Travailleurs Etrangers (GTE or Camp for foreign workers). A few days earlier it was the turn of Moïse Yaffe. Under his influence, the CGQJ wrote at the same time, on April 22, 1943, to the prefecture of Vaucluse (Division D1-B2 of Autrand) a note reminding him of the objectives of the law of November 17, 1941:

“In order to eliminate any Jewish influence on the national economy, the General Commissioner for Jewish Questions can designate a provisional administrator to any enterprise…”

By virtue of this text, I have already provided provisional administrators to a number of Jewish stallholders, and the investigations which were carried out by my services on this occasion revealed that by their type of activity, they were important agents of black market and antigovernment propaganda.

I have decided to get all the Jewish stallholders erased from the Registre du Commerce [Business Registry] and to ask you to be kind enough to carry out the retrieval of their professional cards.

… I will be obliged to you if you send me with the shortest possible delay the list of all the Jewish stallholders, who have received a permit in your département.

These Jews will immediately be provided a provisional administrator…

On May 5, 1943, all the regional offices received a general circular from Pimpaneau in the same vein. Since the prefecture laid low and did not respond, Lebon’s boss sent him a reminder on June 12, 1943:

… the application of the measures ordered by the CGQJ could be implemented only if the list of Jewish stallholders were communicated to us by the prefect of Vaucluse, as it was required by the letter from Vichy mentioned as a reference. It is up to you to have this list sent to us as quickly as possible…28

Lebon finally received the list he had asked for form the prefecture, strangely dated May 17, 1943, a few weeks before the reminder by Lebon’s boss. Was the earlier date given to the list or was the list ready to be sent if Lebon were to insist? Anyway, it contains the names of 64 foreigners and 22 French men.

De Camaret who had been named AP of Yenni’s business, wrote to the regional manager on June 21, 1943:

In agreement with M. Lebon who had notified you about Saltiel Yenni, I have the honor to specify:

- that this is about a stallholder

- that I have not been appraised of anything unfavorable about Yenni

- that there are in the département around one hundred stallholders like him, whose list has been sent to the SEC in Marseille

- that M. Lebon had asked to erase them from the Registre du Commerce

- that this global step would have eliminated their possible influence

- that most of them have a relatively small quantity of merchandise

- that this merchandise can easily be concealed and could in numerous cases elude the investigations of AP

Consequently, I would like to ask you to tell me whether I must, in accordance with my mission, take control of the Yenni business as a normal enterprise. If I am expected to limit myself to get him crossed off the Registre du Commerce, and in this case, am I empowered to do it directly or am I supposed to ask the prefecture to do it? Or do I need to wait for a global crossing off?…29

There was no response from the Marseille offices, but the facts on the ground were: Jewish stallholders practiced their profession on the open market of the place Pie in Avignon, despite the cancellation of their permits. To get by, they had to stay put, prisoners of their stalls, until the upsurge in the arrests of Jews in March 1944. This clear threat of deportation made fleeing a necessary option.

The CGQJ did not spare efforts in dealing ruthlessly with the owners of the largest enterprises placed under provisional administration. The other small businesses which managed to take advantage of the confusion at the CGQJ for drawing, like the stallholders, some meager profits, were nevertheless harassed. This pushed a number of Jewish merchants into semi-clandestine activity, like Jean-Michel Dreyfus among many others.

Having moved away to Avignon… he employs workers already employed by other leather craftsmen and who work at home for him after hours… Dreyfus goes by himself to sell to various stores the goods manufactured in this way; the very small volume of these goods allows them to be manufactured with the greatest ease…

This is how de Camaret described the activity of Dreyfus on May 22, 1942, and he added “Herclich and Janover (unregistered Jews in the Vaucluse) are also said to clandestinely produce goods, a portion of which is said to be distributed by Dreyfus… Janover has 11 children.”³⁰ This report was communicated by the regional director of the Aryanization service of the CGQJ in Marseille to the heads of the PQJ in Marseille and Vichy.

All the documents discussed demonstrate that the dispossession process had not been absolute. A significant number of businesses were not aryanized. The Bernheim-Lyon and André Levy families continued renting out their buildings and apartments until 1944, contrary to the Statute of the Jews.³¹ Were the victims of choice those who had, for one reason or another, attracted some attention, while those less visible managed to escape, for a time, the grip of the CGQJ? Was that because of the envy of competitors or opportunists taking advantage of the Statute of the Jews to swoop down on their prey?

Excerpt from the monthly report of the regional director of the SEC on December 31, 1943:

Region of the Vaucluse

This département is particularly important with respect to Jewish questions. Indeed, my thorough investigation in the region provided me with the opportunity to observe the following facts:

The region of Avignon is home to what it would be appropriate to call “the old Jewish nobility,” which has settled there in Vaucluse since that time; therefore, this has constituted actually created an organization for protection and camouflage of the Jews.

Next to them, and in parallel, there is in Vaucluse a significant leading group of freemasons, which is holding the reins of all administrative services, hence a very visible opposition to the action of the CGQJ in this region.

Our service is not the only one to suffer from this opposition. Indeed, the Milice, the Légion Française des Combattants, the Services of Information and Propaganda, are being boycotted by all possible means.

The Jews are being protected by the entire justice system.

Because of its importance, the “covert” action in the département of Vaucluse should fall within the competence of the government rather than that of our services; the principal directives given to the terrorists emanate from the Vaucluse where numerous important personalities of the “ancien régime”* reside, in the shadows: such is the case of the active Monsieur Dautry.^†

In the same report, the regional director added:

… because of the importance of the activity carried out by the Jews in this region, an activity which tends to sponsor terrorism, to organize it by using individuals from the maquis and foreign workers, that are very numerous in that area.

A similar investigation in the region of the Var, the Vaucluse and the Bouches du Rhône led us to discover that this tight cooperation also exists in the southeast between all these elements whose headquarters are in the Vaucluse.³²

This report attests more to fantasy than to a sense of reality, if one takes into account that the resistance counted only a very small fraction of the population and that the number of Jewish resistance fighters was even smaller, even if their percentage was higher than average; it gives an insight into the viewpoint and the anti-Semitic strategy of the CGQJ leaders, and in particular of the SEC director. Their ideology is clear to all broken down into three parts:

1. The French Jews have kept the privileged position they enjoyed under “l’ancien régime”

2. The French Jews have formed an alliance with the prefectural administration through the “tentacles” of freemasonry

3. The French Jews are protecting the foreign Jews who are frequently the source of terrorism, black market and higher prices

The specter of this alliance of the French Jews with the prefecture caused an intensified effort by the SEC in the dispossession of their assets, the symbols of a harmful taking of roots. The government’s reluctance to see them deported reinforced this phantasm. As for the foreign Jew, responsible for every ill and less protected by Vichy, there was no hesitation to give their names out to the SiPo-SD.

By tracking down any violation of the Statute of the Jews, the two Vaucluse employees of the CGQJ, de Camaret and Lebon, and their helpers did not demonstrate any real imagination. Their mission was dictated by the anti-Semitic program of Vichy, which was in line with that of Berlin, although it did not advocate extermination.

But in defining themselves as hard-liners in the application of the Statute, de Camaret and Lebon were the actors of a preliminary step, necessary for the policy of extermination. They placed the Jews of Vaucluse in such a vulnerable situation that it inevitably led to deportations.

Justice sentenced those two men. But after examining the procedural files, we conclude that many permanent or occasional contributors of this network deployed over the entire department—indispensable to the good functioning of the CGQJ—were never called upon to account for their action.

____________________

* Original French title: Le Guide des Vignerons et Caves de Côtes du Rhône.

* Underlined by Jean Lebon.

† Repository of Mortgages.

‡ Smallholding.

* Louis Raynaud, a wine grower from Châteauneuf du Pape and a member of de Camaret informers network.

* We left the original insinuation where Lebon is asked for names.

* The expression « ancient regime » to qualify le republican regime before the war is a bit ironic in the mouth of a true supporter of the Ancien Régime.

† Raoul Dautry (1880–1951) was an engineer, former minister of armaments from September 10, 1939, to June 16, 1940, who lived in silent retirement in Lourmarin during the entire war.