Sartre: Resistant or Collaborator?

A fabricated history of an anti-nazi resistance fighter has become the almost universally accepted truth about Jean-Paul Sartre’s activities under Nazi occupation during World War II. This history was primarily concocted by Simone de Beauvoir with Sartre’s support, in order to cover up the couple’s acquiescence and relative collaboration with the Nazi occupation of France. And it was only with the liberation of Paris, and with the assistance of Albert Camus, that the couple’s politics and public persona was completely transformed. To what extent the vitriol of Sartre’s later personal attack on Camus during their historic confrontation several years later was fueled by Sartre’s guilt and resentment directed at Camus, whose personal history was certainly not so morally compromised, is a legitimate matter for speculation.

These issues are addressed in my recently published controversial re-thinking of the historical relation of these key intellectual and cultural leaders in post-war European and American civilization. That article, “Sartre and Camus: a much misunderstood relation,” a brief excerpt of which is reproduced below, appeared in Brill’s Companion To Camus: Camus Among The Philosophers. For more information about, or to receive a complete copy of, the article, simply contact me at dsprintz@me.com. Questions, comments, and discussions of the continuing relevance of these issues are, of course, more than welcome.

The Excerpt.

“I think that it is also fair to say that the pre-wwii Sartre was essentially oblivious to political matters. He spent the academic year 1933–1934 studying philosophy in Berlin with no obvious reference to or effective realization of the significance of the rise to power of Adolph Hitler. We cannot know his actual thoughts at that time, because, quite remarkably, practically all of his correspondence from that period is missing. But Simone de Beauvoir does report on a trip that they took to Fascist Italy in 1936, for which they availed themselves, with no expressed misgivings, of a discounted train trip, which required them to visit a display of Fascist military equipment, and with no comment made on the political situation by either of them.

Then there was the war itself, for which de Beauvoir, with Sartre’s apparent approval, later concocted a series of fabrications of resistance activity that apparently did not exist. Contrary to their fabrications, Sartre did not escape from a German prison camp, but was freed by the Germans, probably upon the request of the notorious collaborator, Pierre Drieu la Rochelle. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of the purported underground group, “Socialism and Liberty”, that Sartre was supposed to have created, nor for the purported French constitution that he was supposed to have written, even supposedly having sent a copy to Charles de Gaulle. In fact, what evidence there is suggests both his and de Beauvoir’s limited collaboration with the German occupation: Sartre writing a couple of articles for “Commoedia” and serving on an artistic jury for them in 1943, and de Beauvoir producing a series of brief programs for Radio Vichy as late as 1944. Thus the almost universally accepted version of a “Sartre of the Resistance” is a complete fabrication, apparently primarily concocted by de Beauvoir with Sartre’s approval.

 In addition, Sartre’s philosophical and dramatic writing up to that time shows no signs of any left-wing political consciousness. There is certainly none in Being and Nothingness. Sartreans often claim that Sartre’s mid-war plays, The Flies and No Exit, are expressions of his political commitment to human liberation, being hidden critiques of Nazi occupation and invitations to resistance. Of course, such interpretations fail to explain how the Nazi censors could have been so dense as to miss those meanings when they approved these plays for presentation under the Occupation. But I think that the reality is less confusing, because in fact both of these plays say nothing about political oppression and rebellion, but rather direct themselves only to the question of the human being’s ontological freedom. This is a position that perfectly represents the existential philosophy developed in Being and Nothingness.

 Actually, it is Camus who plays a major role in what we might understand as the beginning of Sartre’s political rehabilitation, specifically, in providing Sartre with resistance credibility by using his position as editor of Combat to assign Sartre the task of writing about the liberation of Paris, an article that in fact was probably written by de Beauvoir. It is only with the liberation of Paris and the consequent defeat of the Nazis that Sartre becomes politically engaged. While there is no adequate account of the nature of his conscious transformation, that transformation is announced with his call for the death penalty for collaborators, then with his creation of what becomes the premier journal of the French Left, Les Temps modernes, along with his subsequent articles on “Reflections on the Jewish Question”, and with his existential critique of Marxism in Materialism and Revolution. All this not only served to completely erase any knowledge of his ambiguous war-time activities, but also required him to begin theoretically to confront the profound tension that existed between the ontological celebration of unlimited human freedom that is existentialism and the historical materialism and apparent causal determinism that was central to Marxism, or at least to official Communist interpretations of it.

Thus begins a profound redirection that will thematically define much of the rest of Sartre’s life, playing a crucial role in the slow transformation of his relationship with Camus, and culminating with their definitive break following the publication by Camus of The Rebel in late 1951. Initiated by Francis Jeanson’s obviously polemical review of The Rebel in Les Temps modernes, the break was consummated by the responses of Camus, Sartre, and Jeanson a few months thereafter. While I will have more to say about that controversy shortly, what I want to note here is the divergent political paths that led from Camus’s and Sartre’s post-wwii personal, social, and political alignment—can I say “friendship”?—to their passionately ideological and political antagonism that endured until the end of Camus’s life in 1960.”

Sartre and Camus: a much misunderstood relation (excerpts)

The following is an excerpt from my article that was recently published in “Brill’s Companion to Camus”. In it I present an original interpretation of their relationship which challenges the official interpretation of Sartre’s left-wing credentials. Those interested in learning more about their relation, and my “revisionist” interpretation, can contact me at dsprintz@me.com.

I think it is also fair to say, that the pre-WWII Sartre was essentially oblivious to political matters. He spent the academic year of 1933-34 studying philosophy in Berlin with no obvious reference or effective realization of the significance of the rise to power of Adolph Hitler. We cannot know his actual thoughts at that time, because, quite remarkably, practically all of his correspondence from that time is missing. But, de Beauvoir does report on a trip they took to Fascist Italy in 1936 for which they availed themselves, with no expressed misgivings, of a discounted train trip which required them to visit a display of Fascist military equipment, and with no comment made on the political situation by either of them.

Then there was the war itself, for which de Beauvoir, with Sartre’s apparent approval, later concocted a series of fabrications of resistance activity that apparently did not exist. Contrary to their fabrications, Sartre did not escape from the German prison camp, but was liberated by the Germans, probably upon the request of notorious collaborator Drieu la Rochelle. Further, there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of the purported underground group, “Socialism and Liberty”, that Sartre was supposed to have created, nor for the purported French constitution that he was supposed to have written, even supposedly having sent a copy to de Gaulle. In fact, what evidence there is suggests both his and de Beauvoir’s limited collaboration with the German occupation: Sartre, having written a couple of articles for Commoedia, and serving on an artistic jury for them in 1943, and de Beauvoir producing a series of brief programs for Radio Vichy as late as 1944. Thus the almost universally accepted version of a Sartre of the Resistance is a complete fabrication, apparently primarily concocted by de Beauvoir with Sartre’s approval.

At the same time, Sartre’s philosophical and dramatic writing up to that time shows no signs of any left-wing political consciousness. Certainly, there is none in Being and Nothingness. It is often claimed by Sartreans that his mid-War plays, The Flies and No Exit, are expressions of his political commitment to human liberation, being hidden critiques of Nazi occupation, and invitations to resistance. Of course, such interpretations fail to explain how the Nazi censors could have been so dense as to miss those meanings when they approved these plays for presentation under Occupation. But I think the reality is less confusing, as both of these plays in fact say nothing about political oppression and rebellion, but rather address themselves only to the question of the human being’s ontological freedom. A position that perfectly represents the Existential philosophy developed in Being and Nothingness.

Actually, it is Camus who plays a major role in what we might call the beginning of Sartre’s political rehabilitation, by providing Sartre with resistance credibility by using his position as editor of Combat to assign Sartre the task of writing about the liberation of Paris, an article that in fact was probably written by de Beauvoir. It is only with the liberation of Paris, and the consequent defeat of the Nazis that Sartre becomes politically engaged. While there is no adequate account of the nature of his conscious transformation, that transformation is announced with his call for the death penalty for collaborators, his creation of what becomes the premier journal of the French left, Les Temps modernes, along with his subsequent articles on Reflections on the Jewish Question, and his existential critique in Materialism and Revolution. This not only served to completely erase any knowledge of his ambiguous war-time activity, but required him to theoretically begin to confront the profound tension that existed between the ontological celebration of unlimited human freedom that is Existentialism and the historical materialism and apparent causal determinism that was central, at least to official Communist interpretations of Marxism.

Thus begins a profound redirection that will theme much of the rest of Sartre’s life, playing a crucial role in the slow transformation of his relation to Camus, that culminated with their definitive break following the publication by Camus of The Rebel in late 1951. Initiated by Jeanson’s obviously polemical review of The Rebel in Les Temps modernes, the break was consummated by the articles of Camus, Sartre, & Jeanson in response a few months there after. While I’ll have more to say about that controversy shortly, what I want to note here is the divergent political paths that led from their post WWII personal, social, and political alignment — can I say, friendship — to their passionate ideological and political antagonism that endured until the end of Camus’ life.

The Novels of Albert Camus: a course that I will be teaching at Hutton House

The Novels of Albert Camus: a course that I will be teaching at Hutton House at LIU-Post this Fall

We will read and discuss the three major novels written by Albert Camus. These are: The Stranger, The Plague, and The Fall. We will explore their dramatic development, stylistic originality, and philosophical significance, while locating them within the complex structure of Camus’ life and thought. 

Background on these works can be found in my Camus: a critical examination.

6 Sessions, on Wed, from 1-3pm, from September 12 to October 17, 2018

Addressing the Crisis of Our Civilization: Existentialism of Sartre and Camus

None can doubt that our civilization is in crisis — daily challenged by economic and social dislocations, technological transformations, political upheavals, ideological contestations, violent confrontations, environmental dislocations, and the ever present danger of nuclear annihilation. What are we to make of all this? And what are we to do about it?
Few have wrestled more personally, profoundly, and creatively with these challenges than the two Noble Prize winners that we will use as our guides in this course. Albert Camus received his Award for “the clear-sighted earnestness (with which he) illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times.” His one-time friend, then dedicated antagonist, Jean-Paul Sartre, the first person to have rejected that Prize, was the most prominent French Philosopher of the 20th Century. We will explore in some detail their lives, personal and political conflicts, celebrated novels and essays, philosophical theories, and positive proposals for addressing the crises of our civilization.

This course will be offered by me as part of the Hutton House Lecture Series at LIU/Post in 9 sessions, on Wednesdays, from 1-3pm, from September 6 through November 1, 2017.

Robert Zaretsky’s A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest For Meaning

Robert Zaretsky’s A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest For Meaning is a pleasant personal exploration of the significance of Camus’s work. It is built around five central Camusian themes: Absurdity, Silence, Measure, Fidelity, and Revolt. Zaretsky’s presentation is pleasant, and for the most part adequate, if not particularly remarkable. He does offer a few helpful additions to the usual presentations, most particularly with the focus he puts on the importance for Camus of the work of Simone Weil. As he importantly observes, “Camus considered the analysis of human needs and duties in L’Enracinement to be a revelation.” To which he adds that “he found Weil’s treatment of ancient Greece no less revelatory,” namely, her “conceptions of limit, measure, equilibrium, which ought to determine the conduct of life” in the West, but do not.

But it is precisely here, however, that Zaretsky’s then goes importantly astray, and it is to correct that serious misrepresentation that I felt compelled to write this review. First, Zaretsky makes the important error of translating “la mesure” as “moderation”, which reduces Camus engaged politics of struggle to an anemic plea for moderation. And then he compounds that error by claiming that Camus insists we must “never allow our rebellion to turn into revolution,” (P. 180) thus treating rebellion and revolution as essential antagonists.

Both conservatives and “liberals” — the latter particularly in the United States — on the one hand, and Marxists and radicals in general, on the other hand, have sought to present Camus as counter-posing revolt and revolution precisely in the manner of Zaretsky. The former to praise him for his opposition to radical revolution, and the latter to rake him over the proverbial coals as a bourgeoise sellout to capitalist oppression.

But Camus emphatically rejected precisely that interpretation of his work, and went to great pains to insist that there was a critical and crucial connection between rebellion and revolution, which we fail to recognize at our peril. No where is that effort clearer than in his (initially unpublished) response to the controversy over The Rebel. (For the English translation of that essay, see my Sartre and Camus: An Historic Confrontation.) Rather, it is only “absolutist”, ideologically inspired Revolution that Camus targets with his criticism, while insisting that fruitful rebellion ought rightfully to lead to revolutionary transformations so long as such revolutions remain true to the spirit of outrage and the demand to respect human dignity that initiated the rebellion. Hence, there is a necessary unity in tension between the spirit of rebellion and the institutionalization of revolution that needs always to be maintained. And Zaretsky completely misses that connection, and thus eviscerates the force of Camus’ analysis. (For an extensive discussion on these issues, see my “Camus: A Critical Examination.)

Review of Robert Zaretsky’s A Life Worth Living — Belknap Press of Harvard University: Cambridge, MA 2013

 

Courses on “What Must We Do Now,” and on the Thought of Albert Camus

Hutton House Course proposals for Fall 2015

Hutton House is a nationally recognized adult education program at LIU/Post, in Brookville, Long Island. For information, contact its Director, Kay Sato, at kay.sato@liu.edu.

WHAT MUST WE DO NOW.

For those who are concerned about the current direction of American society, this two part course will analyze the roots of our current crises and then seek to present a vision, strategies, and a practical program of economic, social and political reconstruction. We will draw upon actual theories and programs that, though “under the radar” of public attention, are currently challenging traditional economics and politics, and can even be locally initiated.

Two sessions — on Wed., September 16 & 23, from 1-3pm

AN EXPLORATION OF THE THOUGHT AND LIFE OF ALBERT CAMUS

As the Western World is now seeing a revival of interest in the work of this Nobel Prize recipient, it would seem an appropriate time to explore the contemporary relevance of his life and thought. We will focus on his major works — The Stranger, The Plague, The Fall, and The Rebel — as they develop the key stages of his thought. In addition to exploring his concepts of “the absurd,” and “revolt”, we will consider his personal roots, as set forth in his uncompleted fictionalized autobiography, The First Man, the manuscript that was found with his body at the time of his tragic death. The frame for this discussion is provided by the comprehensive study of his work that is found in my “Camus: A Critical Examination.”

Five sessions, on Wednesdays from September 30 – October 28 from 1-3pm.

Dr. David Sprintzen. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at LIU Post. Founder and officer of the Long Island Progressive Coalition, and an officer with LI Jobs with Justice and Citizen Action of New York. Author of books on Albert Camus and American Philosophy, and numerous articles on contemporary society.