Mr Lachaise was already at court when Lucy took her seat the next morning. So was Max, who now figured in her head by his first name, an alarming mental shift that had occurred without formal approval. Mr Lachaise offered them both a mint. Max took one; Lucy did not.
Miss Matthews, the Junior to Mr Penshaw, stood for the first time to ‘take’ a witness for the Crown. She called Doctor Pierre Vallon, an elderly French historian now resident in the United States who had previously been based at the Institut d’Histoire de Temps Present in Paris. He was slightly stooped, with a kind, enquiring face. His hands held the witness box as if he were upon the bridge of a ship. He wore a dark, limp suit and a fat bowtie.
Doctor Vallon explained that historians were largely divided on almost every question pertaining to the Occupation. After the armistice with Germany, he said, France had been divided into two regions: the ‘Occupied Zone’ in the north, under direct German control, and the Unoccupied Zone in the south which was managed by the new French government, based at Vichy The latter operated all governmental institutions in both zones but were obviously subject to their German masters. And it was at this early point that scholarly opinion began to divide. The most sensitive issue was participation in the deportation of the Jews. Crucially (for the purposes of the trial), the key question was whether those involved knew that the Nazi project was murder on a massive scale. Doctor Vallon believed that by 1943 many Vichy officials must have known what was happening in the camps. As for someone in the Defendant’s position, an SS officer based in Paris, there could be no significant doubt: such a one would have known precisely what happened to the victims when the freight carriages reached Auschwitz. SS memoranda expressly referred to the fact that the Jews were to be exterminated.
At the conclusion of Doctor Vallon’s Evidence-in-Chief, the court rose for lunch. Cross-examination would begin at ten past two. Lucy quickly left the building and paced the streets for an hour. Then she came back to her seat beside Mr Lachaise, who again offered her a mint. Yes, please, she said.
‘Doctor Vallon,’ said Mr Bartlett as he stood up, ‘are you familiar with the expression “strong words”?’
‘Yes.’ He looked puzzled by the curious question, as did the judge, as did the jury.
‘I suggest it is false. Words are weak. Do you agree?’
‘Possibly; I don’t follow you.’
Mr Justice Pollbrook put down his pen, his baleful eyes resting on Mr Bartlett who said:
‘In the mouth of one they disclose; in the mouth of another they disguise. Words cannot resist corruption. Those who hear them can be easily deceived. Do you agree?’
‘Mr Bartlett,’ interrupted Mr Justice Pollbrook indulgently, ‘are you leading us to the pleasures of Wittgenstein?’
‘Oh no, my Lord, I very much doubt if that would assist the jury.’
‘They already look rather bemused, and I am among their number.’
‘All will become clear, my Lord, if I may continue.’
‘Please do.’
‘I’m most grateful.’
Mr Bartlett then abruptly changed subject, the previous exchanges left suspended in the memory as a tidy, distinct cameo. ‘Doctor Vallon, you told my learned friend that in June 1942 Eichmann summoned his representatives from France, Belgium and Holland to Berlin in order to plan the deportations. He wanted to begin with France, is that right?’
‘Yes. It was to be a grand sweep across Europe, from West to East.’ The academic leaned forward, a fearless, authoritative stare fixed upon his interrogator.
‘And there had been a vast influx of Jews into France throughout the thirties, up to the spring of 1940?’
‘Yes.’
‘Driven out by Nazi terror?’
‘Yes.’
‘Doctor Vallon, is it right to say that the parlance of the day distinguished between “Israelites” and “Juifs”?’
‘Yes.’
“‘Israelite” was a relatively polite term describing French- born Jews who were “assimilated”?’
‘Correct.’
‘And “Juif” had a pejorative overtone, referring to foreign-born Jews?’
‘That’s right.’
‘The distinction did not exist, of course, in the refined vocabulary of the German authorities?’
‘Absolutely not. ‘
‘That said, would it be right to say Eichmann effectively exploited the distinction in order to commence his programme of expulsion with as little protest as possible?’
‘Yes, although I don’t know if he thought in those terms. He wanted to use the French administrative machinery in the planned deportations, so he began with the stateless Jews, the emigres, knowing that the relevant officials were reluctant to pay their resettlement cost in France. ‘
‘That is a most unfortunate turn of phrase in the circumstances…
‘I meant no-’
‘Of course, it was innocently used. However, Doctor Vallon, the innocence of language is a subject to which we shall heavily return.’ Mr Bartlett frowned, looking at the jury. Then he said, ‘However, let’s stay with the word “resettlement”. Do you accept that the cooperation of the Vichy authorities relied upon an understanding that these Jews were being resettled in the East?’
‘That is too broad a question. At the highest level I don’t think reliance upon an understanding came into it. Several Vichy officials were openly anti-Semitic, and for them the removal of Jews from France needed little encouragement or explanation.
Throughout the various government departments that carried out the orders, however, there were obviously shades of opinion and levels of knowledge.’
‘Is it fair to say that a substantial number of people – officials and members of the public – were unaware of the killings, and believed that “resettlement” meant just what it said?’
‘Many may have done so, yes, but only at the outset.’
‘Subsequently, did French cooperation, if that is the word, proceed in an untroubled fashion?’
‘No.’
‘Why?’
‘The general population were appalled by the mass arrests of 1942. Thereafter, State anti-Semitism, which had prevailed through indifference or agreement, was gradually undermined by civil resistance. Thus, when Eichmann wanted to move against the French Jews, the authorities refused, no doubt wary of how the public might respond. Official capitulation slowed down, under protest, and the deportation programme floundered. By this stage, rumours of what “resettlement” meant had begun to trickle through. Thousands went into hiding. By the end of the war there were still two hundred and fifty thousand Jews in France. But the scale of the killing was horrendous. A quarter of the Jewish population were murdered.’
‘My Lord,’ said Mr Bartlett, ‘may I suggest a short break? These are not easy matters for the jury to hear.’
‘Or indeed any of us,’ said Mr Justice Pollbrook. ‘Half an hour, ladies and gentlemen.’