Annie Lacroix-Rice

Annie Lacroix-Rice is a French Historien, professor of Modern history to the university Paris VII - Denis Diderot, in particular known for its communist engagement.

A discussed historian

Former student of the National university (Sevres), aggregate of history, it initially centered her research on the history of the Labor movement and the Syndicalisme (its doctorate of State related to the history of the CGT of the Libération to the scission, of 1944 with 1947).

In the years 1980, it directs its work towards the International relations, in first half of the XXe century, the war of 1914-1918 to the Cold war. In the years 1990, while preserving an anchoring on the international relations, its research leads it to approach the topics of economic collaboration in particular (see, for example, Industriels and banking French under the Occupation ). Strongly politically committed, she works on “significant” subjects, like the production of Zyklon B by French companies under the Occupation. Its articles on the famine in RSS of Ukraine in 1933 are in the middle of an important controversy.

It was also implied against some practical of the modern history, for example the financing by companies of work of certain historians, which, according to it, is not without incidence on their independence (in modern history under influence , the time of Cherries, Paris, 2004).

The Ukrainian famine of 1933

In an article on the “genocidary famine” in Ukraine in 1933 (Holodomor), collection of documents tending to allot its charge to Joseph Stalin to a propaganda campaign, it calls into question the sources - coming from German chancelleries and Italy in.liaison.with the the Vatican - having been used to prove its organized character and to evaluate the number of deaths. This article caused strong reactions, in particular in associations of the Ukrainian diaspora, of which the Ukrainian World congress.

In connection with the famine in Ukraine of 1932-33, she wrote: “the USSR knew in 1932-1933 a serious food shortage leading to a strict reinforcement of rationing, not a famine and in any case not a famine with " six million morts" …” and denounces a “operation of propaganda”, a “tall story”, a “press campaign” Following these remarks, an association of Ukrainians in France organized a petition “to invite more the high ranking authorities of the State to all to implement to fight against the Stalinist revisionism”, which one can reasonably interpret like a request for suspension as professor of university. It followed from there a against-petition, whose first signatories are mainly Communists known as orthodoxe. This request however was left without continuation by the president of the Université Paris VII.

The famine in Ukraine of 1932 is a historical debate in progress in which many historians are opposed. Thus, Stephen Wheatcroft question at Robert Conquest the total estimate of the victims in Ukraine (4,5 million at Wheatcroft instead of 7 million at Conquest). It also disputes that the Ukraine was a privileged target of Stalin. The qualification of genocide is also discussed, the historian Nicolas Werth, initially circumspect goes in this direction in the light of new texts resulting from the files: “Is this a genocide? Rather yes. Compared to the other famines which touched the Soviet Union, this one is characterized by the will from éradiquer nationalism and to punish peasants. It is worsened voluntarily. There is a specificity. ” The American historian Mark Tauger, professor of history to UCLA, criticized the interpretation of the Ukrainian famine made by Nicolas Werth in the black Book of Communism and disputed the genocidary character of this one.

In an interview of September 2007, the historian is explained on this subject in the following terms:

Daniel Laurent: Some of your detractors tax you with negationnism, going even until saying to deny the Stalinist genocide in Ukraine amounts also denying the genocide Nazi of the Jews, which is liable to legal proceedings. How are you located in this debate?
Annie Lacroix-Rice: This business is absolutely ridiculous: that the readers read the whole of the criticism of the published works and the original texts of files, diplomatic and soldiers whom I devoted to the question of the countryside about the topic of “the famine of 1933 in Ukraine” (written not published, but diffused on Internet). And that one ceases taking the criailleries of “Ukrainian” associations or supposed such for scientific remarks. What those reproach me, and they acknowledge it in their sites, it is above all to show, in various work, published, them, such Vatican, Europe and Reich, which the movements “separatists” Ukrainian depended financially on Berlin well before the Second world war, which they contributed to the extermination of the Jews and the Russians of the USSR (Raul Hilberg exposed it before me and at greater length) and which Szepticky, bishop of Lemberg (Austrian) then Lwow (Polish), was the support of the Austrian strategy then German in and against Russia, tsarist then Bolshevik, since the first years of the 20th century, under the aegis of the Vatican. That he blessed division Nazi “Galicia”, and that the Ukrainian “separatists” took part in mass in the massacres of Jews and of Russians at the sides of the German occupant are assertions which return to “Ukrainian” associations hystericals. They rest on established facts.

Other controversies

The work of Annie Lacroix-Rice on the Zyklon B also made the object of criticism, in particular by the historian Denis Peschanski. However others support the point of view of Lacroix-Rice, testifies to it the investigation to Didier Daeninckx into this subject: “When France provided mortal gas to the Nazis”.

In a platform of the World of February 26th, 2002 entitled “the pope of Hitler”, Annie Lacroix-Rice writes that with the support of Pie XII, “the Church engaged actively in the east of Europe in the extermination”.

Criticisms

Courteous Stephan: “Mrs. Lacroix-Rice is unaware of basic testimonys (...) it does not hold any account of the elementary rules of work of the historian (...) At any moment it does not question herself (...) In addition, Mrs. Lacroix-Rice is unaware of as much many work drawn from the Soviet files synthesized by Nicolas Werth (...) it is unaware of as much the many English works. ”

Rene Rémond says that “it remained about it with the political problems of the Cold war. It continues to evolve/move from the point of view manichéenne, where a camp represents the good, freedom, peace, it is that of Moscow; and the other, which is the opposite, empire of the Evil (...)”

negative Response of the scientific committee in July 2006 to the proposal for a communication on “synarchy and purification”, for the conference of the Group of research project 2539 of CNRS “French Companies under the Occupation”, “economic purification in France with the Release”, university of Rennes 2,22- March 23rd, 2007.

Favorable comments

Concerning the book the choice of the defeat: French elites in the years 1930 by the way it issues however certain reserves, Gilles Perrault written: “ridges some with the hostility of many its pars, ostracized by most of the press, Annie Lacroix-Rice has a quality that even its detractors do not dispute to him: it goes to the files like the minor to coal… Enemy of the careful proprieties, not very inclined in the nuance, Annie Lacroix-Rice does not have the consensual temperament… if there were not undoubtedly deliberate choice of the defeat, the will to overcome was cruelly lacking. Annie Lacroix-Rice shows it luminously. ”

Annie Lacroix-Rice prefaced the work of Kurt Gossweiler, Hitler, the irresistible rise , which recuts on many points his own work. According to the authors, the complicity of German employers and great landowners with the Nazi regime as that of the United States are proven. One can also mention the writings of Daniel Guerin ( On Fascism ), which confirm on many points the analyzes of Annie Lacroix-Rice, the more so as it cannot be suspect of sympathy with regard to the Soviet mode.

The French historian François Delpla also makes a very thorough criticism of the Choix of the defeat , stressing the importance of such a research, however “if qualities of débusqueuse of files of the historian once more make wonder and often fly, the documents in fact are delivered rough, more often than confronted and analyzed in their nuances. ”

Militant policy

Annie Lacroix-Rice is member of the communist Pôle of rebirth in France (PRCF) and of the conference Axis for Peace.

Annie Lacroix-Rice positions in an attitude of combat against a block Anti-communiste in the forefront of which one finds, according to it, the Vatican, and on the side of a communist movement of which it asserts the heritage, including that of the Stalinist period . In its personal site in June 2006 testifies, which binds a certain number of sites defending openly Stalin and points towards the site of the review " Balkans-Infos" who denies the reality of the Massacre of Srebrenica and proceeds to an attempt at rehabilitation of Ratko Mladic.

Random links: