Crucified on a Cross of Fire
One of the major changes in France during the 1930s was the loss of faith on the part of millions in the Republic’s institutions. On the left, workers deserted to Communism, while on the right many conservatives turned towards authoritarian alternatives to the Republic. With the world’s highest (reported) venereal disease rates, six governments between 1932 and 1934, and an ailing economy this seemed not just metaphorically, but literally, sick.
Many groups in France had ties to “fascist” leagues that thought they could provide a cure. The conservative party the Republican Federation had many deputies who were in the Cross of Fire, a fascist party; while over a million Frenchmen joined the National Union of War Veterans, a conservative veterans group who rallied in 1934 against the “socialist threat”. [1] By October of 1936, even members of the Radical Party used a fascist salute during the Party’s annual Congress to signify their opposition to the Popular Front. [2] As some reporters noticed, those who used the fascist salute greatly outnumbered those who did not; a portent of things to come.
By the mid 1930s, the French far right was becoming more aggressive. Riots by fascist leagues in February of 1934 brought down a left government, although unlike in Germany there was no plot to overthrow the Republic. What was noteworthy was that much of the French press didn’t condemn the rioters, but rather the police who defended the Chamber of Deputies.
The Threat of the Popular Front
Many in France found the Popular Front to be the coming of a Communist Revolution despite the pledge of its members to respect capitalism. Even less hysterical conservatives regarded rights such as collective bargaining and paid vacations, required by the government, to be anathema, and the strikes that rocked France in 1936 were the worst upheavals since 1848. The onset of the Spanish Civil War only worsened the situation, as the government intervened to support an anticlerical, antidemocratic, anticapitalist regime. [3] Meanwhile, the streets of Paris ran red with blood and revolutionary fire, as pro and anti-intervention forces clashed in the streets.
Yet there was more to the Popular Front than a hatred of Socialists. Many thought France had lost its place in the sun over the last decade, as it knuckled under to a larger and now more prosperous Germany. Many on the right had supported Italy’s intervention in Ethiopia, as Italy, “as a growing nation”, needed colonies and land for its burgeoning people. The right had condemned France’s support of League of Nations sanctions as short-sighted and naïve, and were vindicated when Germany took advantage of Italy’s weakness to annex Austria.
In such an atmosphere, the French Social Party’s ascendance was far from surprising.
The origins of the French Social Party
The French Social Party (FSP) emerged out of the Fascist group the Croix de Feu, or Cross of Fire. Formed in 1929, the Croix de Feu began as an apolitical Veterans group, and was harmless enough that in 1929 Winston Churchill spoke at one of their gatherings and called it “a splendid association”. Yet the movement’s nature changed in 1931, when a former lieutenant-colonel known as Francois de La Rocque took over the movement. A recipient of the Legion of Honor, veteran of the Great War and the Polish-Soviet War, he formed an army of shock troops to support his movement.
Once he took power, the movement rapidly gained notice by disrupting left wing rallies, and Cross of Fire membership, only 5,000 in 1929, reached 25,000 three years later. Following the riots in front of the Chamber of Deputies, the League’s support rose to 50,000 members; a drop in the bucket compared to the political parties, but it was still the largest Fascist group in France. The movement’s youth group, the National Volunteers, had fifty thousand members by the spring of 1934 [4]. As in Germany, it appeared that youth, and especially university students, were attracted to the Croix de Feu. Sending children on pilgrimages to Verdun and Metz, it was of grave concern to certain Germans, who had seen this all before.
Up until the 1934 riots, the Cross of Fire had been an annoyance. Yet the fascist movements had brought down a government, as the left-wing coalition was replaced by a more centrist administration; and it had demonstrated, to La Rocque, the possibilities of a coup. [5] Yet the fate of the Nazi party weighed heavily on La Rocque’s mind. Hitler had come very, very close to taking power democratically, combining a fascist movement with success at the polls. He had thrown it away, and was now on the run. To La Rocque, the Third Republic seemed as divided as Weimar Germany; and the implication was obvious.
Thus, the Cross of Fire began organizing for an election, while still attacking the Socialists and Communists as a “gangrene on France.” La Rocque became head of the “French Social Party”, whose pamphlets freely admitted that they were “the Cross of Fire plus electoral politics.”
But who voted for the French Social Party, and why?
Far-right protestors in Paris
Neither Left Nor Right: The Politics of the Social Party
A look at FSP member rolls turns up the same voters that the Nazi Party attracted early on; engineers, factory managers, lawyers, small businessmen, upper class peasants, others of the middle and lower-middle class. The party also wooed big business, supporting free trade and an end to unions, while promising peasants protection of French agriculture. Despite the party’s attempts to woo over French workers, the French proletariat remained loyal to the Socialists and Communists, which is easily understandable. While the Social Party set up soup kitchen s and job bureaus, its platform emphasized corporatist labor relations that would, in effect, let managers and employers dominate France’s working class. Urging the restriction of benefits to faithful workers, opposing collective bargaining, and condemning sit-down strikes as terror, it is no wonder that the party made little headway among the lower classes.
Many were taken in by La Rocque’s promise that he would respect the Republic’s institutions, and were relieved when he swore before the Chamber of Deputies that he was a loyal republican devotedto republican legality [6] .In the aftermath of the sit ins and strikes that followed the electeion of the Popular Front, many more joined the French Social Party, bringing it up to 600,000 members by June 1936 [7]
Yet even at this point, it was clear that La Rocque wanted to reshape the Republic. In his book Public Service, he proposed a revision that would allow the continued existence of a democratic legislature and an independent judiciary, but the legislature would serve “the leader of the nation”. Indeed, citing the example of Stresemann, he stated that the President should have the ability to appoint his own ministers, dissolve parliament, and could not be voted out of office before his time. By 1936, the French Social party was also calling for restrictions on the Chamber of Deputies’ ability to initiate any legislature requiring expenditures, and urged the creation of a National Economic Council. Ostensibly La Rocque opposed any totalitarian system, but as he put it, “France wants to make use of all its resources under the solid elastic guardianship of a state that protects liberty and manages discipline.”
The French Social Party also had the advantage of funding from France’s economic elite. Large landowners, industrialists, and bankers all provided it with funding. This is not to say that such people wanted a fascist government; many of them also supported parliamentary groups, such as the Republican Federation. Yet concern over the rise of the Socialists and Communists made many turn to the French Social Party as a back up, in the event that the worst occurred. Many leading conservatives did as well, as well as senior members of the French military. [8] While they preferred a parliamentary solution, a dictatorship of the right was infinitely better than a dictatorship of the left.
So how fascist was the Social Party before the end of 1936? Certainly, in addition to its demand for a leader and its paramilitary branch (whose rallies seemed to observers more like military training exercise), there was a strong opposition to “decadence.” The Social Party opposed the decadence that it believed afflicted France, criticizing France’s schools and leftist teachers. Yet It must also be remembered that the French Social Party rejected racism in favor of race collaboration, just as it rejected racial anti-semitism. Among its prominent financiers was the French Jew Ernest Mercier, while Rabbi Jacob Kaplan, held Cross of Fire ceremonies in his synagogue. Indeed, La Rocque was among the most bitter criticism of Nazism, arguing that France’s “diverse vitality” had been influenced by a mélange of people.[9] Fascist it may be; but the Social Party did not practice an ethnic fascism.
This was the party that campaigned for election in 1936, against the Socialists, Communists, and Radicals. This was the party that won over half a million votes.
And this was the party that would bring the Third Republic to its knees.
[1] A bit like the German Steel Helmets (Stalhelm), actually. And like the Stalhelm, most of the members were more concerned with veterans pensions.
[2] This is historical.
[3] At least according to the right wing press.
[4] Also historical.
[5] La Rocque hinted about the possibility of a coup in 1935, “H Hour”, and in 1937 suggested something similar; arguing against launching one because the time was not ripe.
[6] Again, much like Hitler did when he testified before the court in Germany about the Nazi Party’s intentions. The trial is also historical.
[7] By November of 1936, the party had around 600,000 members; I moved this up early because the Party is campaigning and gets a lot of voters when it wins.
[8] This is also historical. The French politician Andre Tardieu would later testify that “a high military personality” had urged that the government secretly fund the Cross of Fire, as a “force of order against the forces of chaos.”
I have no idea who that “high military personality” was, however. Thoughts?
[9] Again, historical. I'm actually concerned that certain people will find the Social Front attractive.
