Talk:Léon Blum

Untitled
He did not believe that socialism could be achieved by parliamentary means.

Support for this? john 04:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I no longer have the large Blum biography which I used to write this article last year, but that book made it clear that Blum was always a classical Marxist who believed that socialism could only be achieved by way of a revolution, although (being a French intellectual) he was never entirely precise about what that might mean in practice. Adam 05:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, the Majority Socialists in Germany were at least officially still Marxists who believed in revolution (the SPD official doctrine didn't renounce that until 1960 or so), but they were, to all effects, revisionists. Once he leads a coalition with bourgeois parties, I think the gig is rather up for orthodox Marxism, in practice if not in theory. john 05:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say that his practice was consistent with his theory, I said what he personally believed, as evidenced in his (prolific) journalism. Adam 05:50, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'll leave it as is, although I think the article as it is now gives the impression that Blum would have supported the striking workers (and thus, revolution) if he hadn't feared an army crackdown. This seems a bit questionable, since Blum had just won an election based on an electoral alliance with the Radicals. I'm not sure how better to word it, though.john 06:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Blum would have supported the striking workers (and thus, revolution) if he hadn't feared an army crackdown" - I think that is the case, or at least I think he thought he would have done. I think he retained a belief in La Journee (de la revolution) all his life, although he had no clear idea of how it would come about. In this he was and is far from alone on the French left. Adam 06:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I suppose this is a plausible interpretation. I'm really quibbling with wording as much as anything. I guess that my view is that the current wording makes Blum's opposition seem more contingent than it was. Blum realized that, as a whole, a revolutionary strategy was not plausible in France in the 1930s, and thus that a strategy of cooperation with progressive bourgeois parties was in order. Thus, while the fact that the counterrevolution was too strong was what brought him to this position, it was the already existing popular front strategy that caused him to oppose the strikes, not an immediate fear of counterrevolution. Does this make sense at all? john 06:36, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes it does. The overriding need to oppose fascism was the motive for the formation of the Popular Front, for both the SFIO and the PCF. The PCF of course explicity renounced revolution during this period, but Blum was less inclined to do so (Blum was consistently more "left" than the PCF, at least rhetorically, but then he was not under orders from Stalin as was the PCF). Blum did not want or expect a revolution in 1936, but that does not mean he did not still find the possibility of one attractive. Not supporting the occupations in 1936 required a conscious and painful act of renunciation for him. I suppose the text could be expanded on this topic, since it was a key turning point in the history of French socialism. Adam 06:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong about the exact sense of revolution in French. Revolution means in fact "a total change" for a socialist this means obviously the end of capitalism. This is doesn't necessary require popular insurrection. Most French socialist today see revolution as a long-term process. Ericd 16:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I will quote Blum in French : "L’utilisation des procédures légales doit être préférée à toute autre méthode." Ericd 16:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Excellent article. Rollo 23:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm new to the Wiki community; however, it appears the otherwise excellent article is marred by stating that Dachau was the principal place of Blum's imprisonment. According to Joel Colton's Humanist in Politics, Blum was imprisoned from April 1943 to April 1945 in the section of Buchenwald reserved for high-ranking prisoners. He was then trundled around southern Germany and the Tyrol until his liberation on 4 May 1945. He and his wife were held at Dachau only from 17 April through 26 April 1945.67.41.161.168 20:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)MarkC

I think I originally wrote something like that (2 years ago now), but subsequent editors have changed it. I will reword it. Adam 00:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

How could he be a Jew if he was a commie?

"How could he be a Jew if he was a commie?" How could Karl Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxembourg, the Rosenbergs, etc. be Jews? THEY WERE ALL JEWS! Isn't there a picture of this Jew anywhere?

Unattributable edit
I see that on 8 April an anonymous contributor removed the first two paras of this entry. But I've been unable to understand why. They look like a couple of pretty inoffensive paras on Blum's early life translated from the French wiki article. I was wondering whether their removal was (1) part of some great discussion taking place .... somewhere, or (2) a simple mistake. Or? If no one has a better idea, I am minded to reinstate those paras, but I am not particularly up to speed with the history of this entry (nor with the life and times of Leon Blum) and I don't want to cut across something that might be a well considered adjustment by a well informed expert. Any thoughts? Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

lein blum etait il vraiement un dreyfus
pas si sur il avait des connaissances mais etait trop faible pour s'opposer a l'allemagne ceci le rendrait encore respectable. la polemique est la leon blum etait il faible ou irresponsable est il vraiement le heros martyre que l'on venere ou bien une personne aboulique en tout cas il a echappe a la mort de part la veneration des nazis pour les rois d'europe le film triple agent d'eric rohmer montre bien la naivete coupable de leon blum prechant la paix se prenant pour jaures et les elections funambulesques qui conduisirent au desastre je pense que la faiblesse de leon blum a sa part de responsabilite dans la shoah alors pourquoi maintient t'on a tout prix cette image  et glorifie t'on cette faiblesse  comme on glorifie aussi les lady di ou les nicole kidman. n'est ce pas abuser le peuple combien ont pese les diplomes universitaires de mr blum devant les discours simplistes des nazis les masses sont elles restees si stupides qu'elles elisent encore des imbeciles comme berlusconi messala n'a pas toujours tort et finalement leon blum restera toujours le faible qui a laisse entrer les loups dans la bergerie est ce pour cacher cette faiblesse dont ils auraient en quelque sorte honte que les francais elisent des segolene royal ou des chirac ou leur rejeton sarkosy et tant pis si ce sont les autres qui payent1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thierryjean (talk • contribs) 08:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cousin Jules"
One of the noted individuals in The Blum Administrated was Jules S. Moch. Given the nickname "Cousin Jules", because of his close association to Blum at one time as his Personal Secretary, and married to Blum's cousin, Germaine Picard. Moch would become a supportive associate in his various appointments and elected positions, during and after Blum left office.Aedwardmoch (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Victor Hugo and Claude DeBussy
Of the many noted people he would meet in his early years, it was written in a biography on Leon Blum, when he was about eight years old, he and his fellow classmates were invited to the eightieth birthday party of Famous French Patriot and writer, Victor Hugo. It was at this event that Mr. Hugo became so impressed by the young Leon for his reciting-writing a birthday poem in his behalf. Hugo said that the young man 'he (Blum) would go far... and become a person of importance'. Years later, as a reporter-writer, Leon Blum would encounter and become good friends with music-composer, Claude Debussy. Aedwardmoch (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Existence within Concentration Camp
Can this be described? Better food or not, etc.?--Jrm2007 (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Untitled
The statement "an object of particular hatred to the Catholic and anti-Semitic right" is correct but very tendentiously phrased. Most of those wxho voted for Blum were Catholics, given the overwhelming Catholic majority in France at the time it would have been impossible for him to be elected otherwise. Also the right in France was and is still also Protestent (as well as agnostic). Nor was everyone who was conservative antisemitic. Far from it. A correct phrasing would be "an object of particular hatred to those of the right who were anti-Semitic." Tessalonika (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Category Jewish monarchs
The category "Jewish monarchs" seems to a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.32.130 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

And still hasn't been deleted! Or it may be borne out of the erroneous assumption that Blum was Co-Prince of Andorra (which he was not- only the President can be that). Anyway, can anyone authorised please remove this ludicrous category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.223.110.34 (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Done.
 * As a footnote, it should be noted that this was originally added on 14:55, 25 November 2010‎ (diff) thus:
 * with the HTML comment presumably intended as a way to forestall anyone from deleting it. Well, it worked for five years, though it should not have, as one person's opinion does not trump WP policy and the requirement for reliable sources.  As the claim is supported neither by List of Co-Princes of Andorra nor by the source www.rulers.org which was originally claimed as the source for it, this category has been removed.  Hopefully recording this notice on the talk page will prevent the category from getting reintroduced once again (or if it is, a reference from a reliable source should be a requirement, otherwise any such change should be rapidly reverted.).
 * P.S. I've taken the liberty of renaming this section Category Jewish monarchs and providing an to the old section title in case there are outstanding links to it. Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've taken the liberty of renaming this section Category Jewish monarchs and providing an to the old section title in case there are outstanding links to it. Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No source
The first sentence in the second paragraph makes a number of unsourced statements. The claim that Blum was an avid reader of nationalist ideas is not sourced. We are then told that he had little interest in politics at the same time. These two are almost contradictory. A effort is being made to depict Blum as a convert to his later ideas, probably by Blum himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.69.11 (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Germany defeats Britain in 1940
The following edit from 04:18, 1 August 2015 (diff) contains an egregious error which rewrites the history of World War II:

"Suddenly in the spring of 1940, The Germans astonished the world by defeating both Britain and France in a matter of weeks."

Those who participated in the Battle of Britain will be surprised by this statement.

I've made a three-word change to fix it, but what can possibly be the explanation for this edit? You don't seem like a vandal, because your other edits from 09:12, 25 May 2015‎ to 04:36, 1 August 2015 (I didn't check all of them) generally seem like good faith attempts to improve the article. Mathglot (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The British Army was decisively defeated. Rjensen (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I see what you were driving at now; the British Army (BEF) yes, but not Britain. The problem was the misleading parallelism&mdash;the previous wording makes it sound like Britain was knocked out of the war in 1940.  "Defeating France" resulted in France surrendering to German occupation and military rule.  "Defeating Britain" never happened; "Defeating the British army" resulted in them licking their wounds and retreating home to fight another day, and, eventually, win.  Phrasing that as "defeating both Britain and France" is misleading. Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * it's fixed. People who did not know that should not be reading this advanced article. Rjensen (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just not how WP works. You could have high school or college students reading it, and it's best to be explicit; in any case, it's not our place as editors to say who "shouldn't" be reading it.  Here's an amusing short man-in-the-street survey from some students at Texas Tech about general historical knowledge, which may amuse, appall, or alarm you: http://www.npr.org/sections/theprotojournalist/2014/11/18/364675234/who-won-the-civil-war-tough-question.  That's basically why we have to be explicit when wording sentences that might make it sound like Germany defeated Britain, to some people. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Advanced articles like this one deal with highly specialized topics, and we can use more sophisticated language, & discuss more complex relationships. Really bright high school students can handle it. Reading it over again, I think this article handles advanced material at a reasonably clear level. there is no need to degrade it to make it simplified for people who do not know who is the Vice President of the United States. There already is a simplistic Wikipedia in English. Rjensen (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Léon Blum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903174124/http://judaisme.sdv.fr/perso/lblum/lblum.htm to http://judaisme.sdv.fr/perso/lblum/lblum.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413142204/http://www.jouy-en-josas.fr/maisonblum.php to http://www.jouy-en-josas.fr/maisonblum.php
 * Added tag to http://www.cercle-leon-blum.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this sentence from the article is incorrect.
The second Government, 1938, and its collapse

"The government cooperated with Britain and declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland in September 1939."

Probably should read something like:

Blum's government was succeeded by a government headed by Blum's deputy, Édouard Daladier, who cooperated with Britain and declared war on Nazi Germany when Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September 1939.

Geo8rge (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Schloss Itter vs Dachau proper and Orders to Execute Everyone at Itter vs Mr. Blum specifically
Mr. Blum was interned at the famous, swanky Schloss Itter, not Dachau proper. Schloss Itter was under administration of Dachau- But Dachau and Schloss Itter are very, very different places. The description should be changed to Schloss Itter for accuracy. Next, everyone interned at Schloss Itter was to be executed, not specific persons, i.e., not Mr. Blum by name. The description is misleading in that Mr. Blum, personally, was ordered to be shot. Notice there is no citation for Mr. Blum's execution. The reference to the German Gov't ordering Mr. Blum's execution needs to be removed, or the Battle of Schloss Itter inserted. The current phrasing characterizes the nature of his internment and the importance the German government gave to Mr. Blum incorrectly.