Gun Control in Nazi Occupied-France Read online

  Only Germans May Hunt

  Meanwhile, the Germans were settling in for a comfortable stay. From Paris, on July 31, the Chef der Militärverwaltung in Frankreich (MVF, or head of the military administration in France), decreed that the French could not hunt because they could not possess firearms, but that German soldiers could pursue game. Hunting would use the country’s resources to help meet the needs of the Wehrmacht and the German war economy.10

  The way was thus paved for the plunder not only of the natural resources of the occupied country—its wild game—but also of its citizens’ firearms. Firearms of all kinds were confiscated not only to prevent any resistance, but also to be transferred to German soldiers for hunting and other purposes. Such orders were only a more organized form of the same kind of looting that took place by warring aggressors in ancient times. In the years of occupation, it was German policy to loot everything that could be looted, art and wine being conspicuous examples,11 but most prominent being labor and economic resources. As would be found in the Nürnberg (Nuremberg) trials, the pillaging of private property in all of the occupied countries was unlimited.12

  However, such organized theft was not yet taking place as occupation authorities still observed some semblance of international law. An August 11 order of the Army High Command, General Staff of the Army, applicable in occupied France, Netherlands, and Belgium provided for “Weapons Confiscated from Private Citizens” as follows:

  Pursuant to the Military Administration in France, in addition to captured weapons, Local and District Military Administrative Headquarters have turned over to military police staff weapons and ammunition confiscated from private citizens (mostly hunting rifles). These weapons will probably be returned to their owners later because they are not captured property. They must be separated from the captured property and held for pickup by Local and District Military Administrative Headquarters. Make sure that any documents showing ownership remain with these weapons.13

  However, such registration of private property would prove illusory. A Nazi organization known as the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR) was at work registering Jewish cultural assets supposedly to protect them, but with the proviso that the Führer would decide their disposition. Historian Thomas Laub relates, “They described the registration of art as a measure comparable to military decrees ordering Frenchmen to register arms that could be used in a future conflict.”14 Such registration was just the first step to the confiscation of all such property.

  Not foreseeing the harsh occupation to come, gun owner organizations promoted measures to identify people who had surrendered their firearms so they could be returned when peace came. The Saint-Hubert-Club de France, a hunting association, and l’Union Fédérale des Sociétés de Tir aux Armes de Chasse, a society of target shooters and hunters, supported the sending of questionnaires nationwide to do so. Monsieur Glandaz of the Saint Hubert Club met with Jean Chiappe, president of the municipal council of Paris, to implement the plan, which spread to departments throughout the occupied zone.15 Events would prove the scheme to be naive indeed.

  Le Matin repeatedly published a communiqué from the prefecture of police headlined “Possession of Arms in Occupied Territory” beginning on August 13. It recited the German decrees of May 10, ordering the surrender of firearms, and June 20, ordering that hunting guns be included, and noted that the orders had been published in the Moniteur des ordonnances du commandant d’armes de Paris (Bulletin of Orders from the Military Commander of Paris), July 4, 1940. The communiqué concluded: “Following the return of many people to their homes, it is important once again to turn the population’s attention to their obligation to surrender their firearms, while reminding everyone that the offenders shall face serious punishments according to the Moniteurs des ordonnances provisions.”16

  The duty to surrender arms was repeated in an edict dated August 20 of the MVF, who added that firearms must be turned in to the German authorities, while hunting guns must be surrendered to the mayors, who would keep them in custody. This applied to both usable and unusable firearms. All hunting guns and ammunition would then be transferred to the district military administrative headquarters, which would set up hunting-gun depots.17

  The deadline for reporting the central registration of hunting guns and locations of depots would be extended from October 1 to November 10. Usable hunting guns were to be categorized as rifles, shotguns, or combination rifle/shotguns. The rounds of ammunition were to be counted.18

  Along with enjoying French wine, women, and song, German soldiers wanted to try their luck at hunting. For the French, hunting was ended. As reflected in an August 29 order, the MVF repeated that “the local population in the occupied territory must surrender all hunting guns. Only members of the German Army may hunt.” The soldiers were admonished strictly to abide by the German hunting rules of the Reichsjagdgesetzes (Reich Hunting Laws) dated July 3, 1934.19

  A Disregarded Decree

  In the chaos, the decrees were not enforced uniformly. An August 21 report from the commune of Maisons-Lafitte noted secret field police (Geheime Feldpolizei) intelligence that “[w]eapons in the possession of civilians have not been surrendered in a consistent way. For example, one military office did not request the surrender of more than 30 rifles and shotguns, as well as several pistols, stored in the open in the office of a mayor. In some towns, surrendered weapons were apparently returned to their owners.”20

  Similarly, the August 22 order of the day (Tagesbefehl) from Dijon observed that the surrender decree “has been repeatedly disregarded, mostly by people who are returning. The population must be reminded to observe the decree of May 10 conscientiously and of the penalties in case of violations.”21 Countless civilians had fled the German invasion and were now coming home.

  In this early period, death sentences were by no means automatic for mere possession of a firearm. For instance, on August 26 a student named Pierre Lebelle in Rennes was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for flight and possession of weapons, and three student accomplices got eighteen months.22 As resistance activities escalated over time, death sentences became more common.

  The French police assisted the Germans in all aspects of occupation policy. The situation report of the MVF for August reflected this: “The activity of the military police at District and Local Military Administrative Headquarters was limited to weapons searches, supervision of French police regarding surrender of weapons, search for and arrest of British citizens, searches for German emigrants, night watch, price control, and putting up of flyers against sabotage.”23 Aside from such provisions of occupation policy, German military law applied in the occupied zone to crimes where a German was the perpetrator or victim, and French law otherwise applied.

  Service of the French police to the Germans was noted with contempt by Agnès Humbert: “At the Palis-Royal Métro station I notice a Paris gendarme saluting a German officer with obsequious servility. Rooted on the spot, I watch as he repeats the gesture over and over again for the benefit of every passing officer—stiff, mechanical, German already.”24

  The German authorities trusted the French police with arms, but with reservations. As noted by the MVF, the French criminal police could be armed only with as many pistols as were needed, to include only one magazine with ammunition per pistol. Public notices of the orders banning weapons possession and the introduction of German criminal law were ordered to be provided immediately. As for the reports about weapons openly stored in a mayor’s office and mayors returning previously surrendered weapons to their owners, the district military administrative headquarters were reminded to secure surrendered weapons.25

  The above was followed by an order condemning the unauthorized confiscation by some German officers of weapons from the French police, who were entitled to a sidearm, a rubber truncheon, and one pistol with nine shots.26 The need to establish a policy for issuance of weapons permits to French authorities and private entities such as banks and guard serv
ices was also recognized.27

  A regular situation report (Lagebericht) began to be filed by each of the military administrative districts (Militärverwaltungsbezirke) in September 1940. They included District A at Saint-Germain-en-Laye (northwestern France); District B at Angers (southwestern France); District C at Dijon (northeastern France); District Paris; and District Bordeaux.

  District Paris reported a raid netting only four illegal weapons.28 While noting some violations, District A reported that the threats of punishment seemed to have worked.29

  District B had more substance. Bookstores were searched for illegal books and weapons were confiscated. About reports that weapons had not been surrendered, District B indicates that these mostly concerned farmers who had failed to turn in their hunting guns, which they either hid under hay or straw or did not bother to hide. Sentences ranged from one month to one year in prison.30 That was pretty lenient given that the death penalty could have been ordered.

  A report added that German soldiers were being insulted with taunts of “boches” or “German pigs,” but admitted that the soldiers had caused the insults by being drunk or fighting with civilians.31 At least in some areas, the occupation was not going too harshly.

  The MVF, which received the above reports, saw progress in disarming civilians with military arms but, given the large number of those who used to have the right to hunt, few hunting guns were confiscated.32 French hunters were perhaps not taking the threat of the death penalty seriously, or thought they would not be detected, as hunting guns were not registered.

  Registration of the Jews

  A German decree requiring the registration of Jews was published on September 30.33 Vichy quickly fell in line. “The victor is inoculating us with his diseases,” wrote Guéhenno on October 19. “This morning the Vichy government published the ‘Statute Regulating Jews’ in France. Now we’re good anti-Semites and racists.” On the 22nd, Pierre Laval met with Hitler. “And since then, the whole country is trembling,” noted Guéhenno, adding, “What could that horse-trader have done? For what price did he sell us down the river?”34

  “Through a haze of cigarette smoke we saw a stocky, greasy-faced little man behind the desk,” wrote Associated Press correspondent Roy Porter about his interview with Laval during this period. Banging his fist on the desk, Laval shouted, “I hope to God that the Germans smash the hell out of the British until they leave only a grease spot. Then, perhaps, France can take her proper place in European affairs without British domination.”35 His policy of collaboration was unabashed.

  By now, military tribunals were hard at work punishing French citizens who had failed to surrender firearms. District A in Saint-Germain reported numerous cases, particularly in an area where house searches took place in retaliation for cut cables, netting old hunting guns and rusty pistols that had not been surrendered out of fear. The only death sentence reported concerned a man who fired a shot at a German soldier.36 Numerous searches found weapons possessed by Catholic priests and demobilized soldiers who just returned and were afraid to surrender their weapons.37

  District A further reported the bringing of 54 cases of illegal weapons possession and the confiscation of 12,085 hunting guns, 115,305 hunting cartridges, and 404 pistols. The low number of prosecutions compared to the quantities seized indicates that most were voluntarily surrendered, either to German military officials or to French mayors or police. Captured property, that is, weapons taken from the French military, included 5,718 rifles and 425 handguns, together with 5 tanks, 42 artillery pieces, 2 mortars, 88 machine guns, and 2,486 sidearms (bayonets and swords).38

  As reported from District B, hunting guns continued to be found, along with a few pistols seized in a search of ministers’ houses. In Châtellerault, 350 rifles, 50 machine guns, and 60 pistols were found in a basement.39 Besides weapons possession, crimes committed by the French included theft, anti-German demonstrations such as ripping off propaganda posters, currency export violations, illegal border crossings, slander of the German army, and illegal traffic with prisoners of war. Lack of French discipline caused most traffic accidents. Finally, it noted the death sentence against one André Eluau for using a knife to attack a sentry armed with a rifle who was stationed in front of the Hôtel de Paris in Le Mans.40

  Otto von Stülpnagel, Military Commander

  On October 25, General Otto von Stülpnagel replaced General Streccius as the military commander in France (Militärbefehlshaber, or MBF).41 Above all others, Stülpnagel would trust and rely on Werner Best, the central figure of the administrative staff.42 While serving in the next year and a quarter, he would order the execution of numerous French citizens for firearm possession. Earlier that month, the SS security service (Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, or Sipo-SD) began operations to focus on the repression of Jews, religious groups, Communists, and other targeted classes.43

  The MBF command staff reported appropriate measures taken against several cases of illegal weapons possession, some involving clerics. The military police secured abandoned military ordnance, including heavy weapons together with 160 machine guns and 1,200 handguns. Some 1,500 rifles and pistols and 27,000 hunting guns had been confiscated from civilians, proving that large numbers still lay in the hands of the population. The report noted that two German soldiers were sentenced to over five years’ imprisonment—one for rape, another for desertion—while a French citizen was sentenced for five years, and another for seven years, for weapons possession, and a third to ten years for demoralization of the troops.44

  The military police of the District Paris filed a report for October 13 to November 12 that included an extraordinary number of arms confiscated or taken into custody by district military administration headquarters (HQ) #758,45 including a large number of rifles to be scrapped, 6,612 hunting guns, 1,034 shotguns and teschings (small caliber parlor rifles), 622 handguns, 10,555 hunting cartridges, and 10,000 hunting cartridge cases. Yet only 22 cases of illegal weapons possession were reported from HQ 758, suggesting that almost all of the confiscated arms were turned in voluntarily. Numerous firearm confiscations were also reported from other HQ sectors.

  District A reported a decrease in illegal weapons possession in one area after a military court suggested new warnings to the prefect, who passed it on to the public. But in another area where arrests increased, to counter claims by many French that they failed to surrender their arms because they hid them too well, the court offered an amnesty for arms surrendered by November 20.46

  “Cooperation with French Police Is Good”

  “Cooperation with the French police is good,” reported District B. The search of a cave in Saumur based on confidential information yielded nothing, but weapons were found in a forest on the coast.47 The next monthly report noted 45 cases of illegal weapons possession and confiscations of 356 rifles, 65 pistols, 158 hunting guns, 1,121 rounds of hunting ammunition, and five kilograms of gunpowder.48

  Similarly, District Paris reported, “We have a good relationship with the French gendarmes and police. Our cooperation with both of them is excellent…. They are fully at the service of the German offices.” This cooperation would have included ferreting out “illegal weapons possession,” of which only a dozen or so were reported. However, of “confiscated or secured objects,” all districts reported rifles and pistols and sizable quantities of ammunition (ranging up to 30,000 rounds in one district), and one district reported 850 hunting guns. “Captured property” included 1,300 rifles, 35 pistols, and 53 slashing and thrusting weapons.49

  The fall hunting season was in full swing, about which various directives were issued. District B in Angers reiterated that hunting guns could only be issued to holders of army hunting permits. Useable and quality hunting guns stored in depots had to be maintained by workers paid by the mayor.50 Major General Karl-Ulrich Neumann-Neurode, head of District B, ordered that the depots be cleaned out of old guns, such as flintlocks without practical use as weapons for which ammunition w
as unavailable, and of old sabers and swords. They were to be returned to their owners either directly or through the prefect or mayor.51

  The same directive clarified that no distinction existed between hunting guns surrendered by private citizens and those surrendered by dealers—both had to be transferred to hunting-gun depots immediately if they had not been already. Besides disarming the populace, this would ensure a bountiful supply for German hunters. The directive ordered a count of the number of hunting permits issued by the army as of the year’s end as well as the number of hunting guns issued to German soldiers, guns that did not need to be returned.

  The MBF issued a comprehensive report covering four months from late 1940 to early 1941.52 French citizens were sentenced to over five years’ imprisonment for illegal weapons possession, assault on a soldier, and distribution of flyers favoring the enemy. The number of cases of illegal weapons possession was as follows:

  However, the number of confiscated weapons was far higher, suggesting that large quantities were surrendered to the Germans directly, or to the French authorities and then confiscated from them (see chart on next page):

  As can be seen, 13,398 hunting guns were surrendered in Bordeaux, followed by 3,685 in District A at Saint-Germain-en-Laye (northwestern France), 1,391 in District C at Dijon (northeastern France), 920 in Paris, and only 103 in District B at Angers (southwestern France). Except for the latter two—nine times more hunting guns were surrendered in Paris than in District B—these figures may have reflected the prominence of hunting guns in rural France. However, more rifles were surrendered in District A than in Bordeaux, with far more pistols confiscated in Bordeaux than District A. The countless human realities behind the statistics were not recorded.