Talk:Pierre Drieu La Rochelle

[Untitled]
Karl: (1) While I have kept everything you added, I have also restored what I had previously written here. I think his communist period and the nature of his transition from communism to fascism are quite important; I really cannot imagine why you have removed these from the article. (2) You give a very lengthy list of books as references, but you only wrote two paragraphs. Have you actually read the books you are citing? If so, I would hope you could add a lot more to this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:38, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

 * Well, I did my Master's thesis on this author. Although that's several years ago, I'm one of the few people who can say that they have read nearly all of Drieu's works. Drieu never had a "communist period", although he may have had some (fleeting) sympathy for communism in his early years. If you stand by this claim, you should mention your sources. I also think that his political essays are not what he should be remembered for today. The focus of the article should be on his literary works. I removed the external links, (1) because the sites are not in English; (2) the French site is too sympathetic to Drieu's politics; (3) the Italian site violates copyright. - Karl Stas 08:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no policy against linking to foreign-language sites; the only policy against linking to them is where a comparable or better English-language equivalent is available. If there is a policy against linking to sites with copyright issues, I'm unaware of it, and would appreciate if you would point me to it.
 * You are doubtless more expert on Drieu La Rochelle, and I will trust you that he was not a CP member, but if you are saying that the author of Genève ou Moscou was not, at the least, a small-c communist, can I ask you to elaborate on that? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Drieu always was an anti-materialist. That's why he rejected both capitalism and marxism. In Genève ou Moscou, he even tries to demonstrate that the antagonism between the two systems is only apparent: both are "children of the machine". If at times in his life he admired "Moscow", it's because he saw a new spiritual élan there, not because he adhered to the principles of communism or marxism-leninism. I would also like to point out that neither the French Wikipedia article (in its current revision) nor the Italian biographical piece claim as much. "Nel 1917, fu attratto dal comunismo, quindi si mostrò favorevole ad un'Europa forte" means "In 1917, he was attracted by communism; later, he favoured a strong Europe". I would say that even "attracted" is an exaggeration. I refer to the article by Jean-Pierre Morel, "Drieu et le communisme" in Dambre (ed.), Drieu la Rochelle, écrivain et intellectuel. - Karl Stas 08:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Devoid of any nationalism?
From the article: "He believed that a federal Europe, devoid of any nationalism on part of its constituencies, could bolster a strong economic and political union isolated from the imperialist Russians and Americans; in 1939 he was left to believe that only Nazi Germany could deliver such an autarkian promise." I think it is very dubious to say what Drieu believed without saying when (except for his anti-liberalism): how can one say that a sometime supporter of the Parti Populaire Français was uniformly opposed to nationalism?

I'd appreciate if the person who wrote this would take a shot at rewriting more carefully. If not, I'll have at it in a few days. - Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've provided a reference. Intangible 12:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: does the cited source deal at all with his period supporting Doriot? It simply seems weird to me to say that the Parti Populaire Français was not nationalist. Our article on them refers to them as "conservative nationalists": that seems accurate to me from what I've read (though I can't claim to be expert). Still, from what I have read, I'd be more inclined to question "conservative" (vs. "reactionary") than "nationalist". - Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Does Intangible means they were not "nationalists" because they were one of the biggest collaborationist? Irony set aside, I stop assuming good faith from Intangible, and this is yet another example of his POV edits. His argument that the PPF worked for a "Europe devoid of nationalism" sounds like a Nouvelle droite legitimation of old fascist parties (see his work at this article too) based on White "European nationalism". I doubt that because the National Front cooperates with other European far right parties (sorry Intangible for defining the FN as far right) it is not nationalist. Intangible seems to jump from the conclusion that to be "in favor of Europe" is necessarily to be opposed to nationalism (at least, since I don't read in his mind, this is what this edit on this page seems to state). This, of course, is bypassing the notion of federalism, which of course doesn't oppose ""l'Europe aux nations"", since it is favor of l'Europe des nations. Should I add that the Third Reich was also a version of Europe, one that was supposed to last a thousand years? You may be interested in noting that User:Cberlet has filed a Rfarbitration against Intangible, and his strange edits on this page do nothing to improve my view on him. Tazmaniacs 14:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: The PPF wasn't "conservative", but fascist. The Wikipedia article correctly states it. What does "conservative nationalists"mean? Nationalism, in France, is usually distinguished, especially in the beginning of the 20th, between an open, universal type of nationalism, based on citizenship & al., shared by the Republican left-wing (France as "pays des droits de l'homme" - sic); and a "close", exclusive type of nationalism, which emerged during the Dreyfus Affair with Maurras and the Action française, and which excludes "Jews, protestants, freemasons" and "métèques", that is foreigners... Tazmaniacs 14:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I modified the sentence as such: "He believed that a federal Europe could bolster a strong economic and political union isolated from the imperialist Russians and Americans; in 1939 he was left to believe that only Nazi Germany could deliver such an autarkian promise.". Note that the second part of the sentence (in 1939... Nazi Germany) contradict Intangible's claim that this view of a federal Europe "was devoid of nationalism". I don't exactly agree with the assertion that the Third Reich's European conception was "devoid of nationalism", although Intangible might. Actually, several nationalist French people, although sympathetic to fascism and nazism, fought in the Resistance because they kind of had a little conscience problem with supporting the "hereditary enemy". Does Intangible wants to make us believe that the new far right (see New Right and Nouvelle Droite &mdash; which are not the same!), which is grounding itself in a mythical view of Occident (Occidentalisme) versus colored people, is beyond nationalism? That might be their arguments, but, to return to our subject here, it certainly wasn't Drieu La Rochelle's argument, except if you believe in Hitler's dream of "pacifically" unifying all European countries (of course, the Eastern countries had to be emptied first if they were to become "Germany"'s (which somehow grew a bit) lebensraum...) Tazmaniacs 14:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To quote: "..he should have given the closest scrutiny to the policies pursued by such leaders as Hitler. Even the term National Socialism should have given him a pause; for Drieu was hardly a nationalist, certainly not a German nationalist; and while from 1934 on he openly advocated fascists "socialism," he appears not to have drawn any significant conclusions from Mussolini's career or from the fact that Hitler in that very year had turned on the left-wing elements in his own party and had only too obviously made his peace with German capitalism. Hitler's totalitarian national capitalism was not precisely the incarnation of Drieu's European and socialist fascism. But what Drieu was concerned with was a vision, subjective like all visions...It would be a socialism in the spirit of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Cabet, and Proudhon. Marxism, he argued, had obscured these earlier socialist traditions, but they had undergone a brief revival before the first World War in the thought of Sorel and Pelloutier...He did not see the state as having any important role to play once socialism had been established. Just as he believed that nationalism was only an incidental aspect of fascism, to be used as a stepping stone to Europeanism..." So although he might have seen nationalism as a means, it certainly was not an end in his opinion. If you want to add this nuance, go ahead, but just don't go blindly reverting people's work without discussion. Intangible 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Intangible, with all my sincere respect, you should tread softly on such subjects. I don't have to add the nuance, it's rather the other way around. Drieu La Rochelle was a fascist and, therefore, nationalist. That he had European views in no way contradict either his fascism, or his nationalism (again, the Third Reich was "European", but luckily they are other versions of Europe). You know very well what Wikipedia is, and if you may enter complex matters, you certainly simplify things by stating "devoid of nationalism", as if he opposed nationalism. I don't really care if he saw it "as a means" or as "an end", and I don't doubt that you are aware that these distinctions between "means" & "end" are most problematic in politics (although it is often traced to Machiavelli, this man was smart enough to know that one can't distinguish clearly both, and that the end is always in the means, or the means the end, whatever way you want to have it). If you want to write a paragraph on Drieu La Rochelle's conception of nationalism & Europe, do so. I wouldn't advise it to you however, since I don't think this is the place to write a thesis. And you will need lots of sources, and it might be called original research. Tazmaniacs 13:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that there is nothing wrong with killing people to bring about morally just ends? Intangible 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Tazmaniacs 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)