Books on the massacre of the Tutsis
April 6, 2012
Ireproduce here the email that Bruno Boudiguet sent me.
The most unbearable scandal of the Fifth Republic
French policy in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide against the Tutsis has often been criticized for its blindness, and even for complicity.
"Yet never before had anyone seriously claimed, let alone proven, that French military commandos had directly participated in certain massacres. That has now been established." (Géraud de la Pradelle, author of the preface to Serge Farnel's book, Rwanda, May 13, 1994: A French Massacre?)
On May 13 and 14, 1994, 40,000 men, women, and children were exterminated in the hills of Bisesero. This fact is common knowledge. What is less known is the presence of French soldiers among those using heavy or automatic weapons. Opening fire on these civilians, they carried out a true massacre.
A thorough investigation conducted in 2009 and 2010, based on numerous precise testimonies from survivors and perpetrators (see the book's website: www.rwanda13mai1994.net).
A landmark book of over 800 pages detailing the direct involvement of the Élysée Palace in the genocide.
That's already a lot—but it's not the whole story.
Last January, a dramatic twist. An expert report commissioned by Judge Trévidic definitively ruled out the theory that the RPF was responsible for the April 6, 1994 attack that killed President Juvénal Habyarimana and served as the pretext for the genocide. This hypothesis was already far-fetched from the start. On the other hand, the responsibility of the French executive appears increasingly serious, even if it is still only vaguely alluded to. If anyone has consistently maintained this position for 18 years, it is Michel Sitbon, editor at L'Esprit frappeur. An anthology of his texts on the assassination deserved to be published: the analysis is relentless and sometimes vertiginous.
We are now in the midst of an election campaign. Candidates avoid controversial topics, such as Françafrique. The real, predatory one—not the petty intrigues constantly discussed while pretending it has been dead and buried for twenty years. Ten years ago, I created the stop-françafrique website with its interactive map, after reading Verschave and being outraged by the discovery of this vast, terrifying abyss that is French policy in Africa. In 2012, neocolonialism is still very much alive. The Gabonese and Togolese tyrants, who served as French influence agents for 40 years, have been succeeded by their sons, who continue the colonial tradition. The Ivorian and Libyan crises paralyzed public opinion with their complexity. I also wanted to analyze the trajectories of the two major political parties: the UMP, the main branch of Françafrique, and the Socialist Party, which has always reneged on its promises to end this system.
You can purchase these books in bookstores, on Amazon, Fnac.com, etc., and directly at
Bruno Boudiguet
Regarding these atrocities in Françafrique, I only have the oral testimony of a journalist who once worked in Gabon. But I trust his word, even though he never considered testifying publicly. He told me about the complicity of individuals—now prominent political figures with loud humanitarian claims—who at the time organized the evacuation of killers, French military personnel whose hands were stained with blood, using aircraft meant for evacuating children and the wounded.
Are we still salvageable? I'm asking myself this question honestly.
The political sphere is an activity that involves Machiavellianism and cynicism. Recently, I rewatched a long series of DVDs covering key events of the Second World War. The source was clearly American. The translations often make one smile. It's certain that no Francophone military expert was consulted to verify the translations read aloud to the narrator. Among the ten DVDs, of uneven quality, I can't help but quote one particularly striking phrase:
Then the Russian rocket launchers, known as Stalin's organs, come into action.
"Organ" in English means "organ." The original English text clearly referred to the Katiouchka rocket launchers, which the Russians themselves had nicknamed "Stalin's Organs."
Anyway. These endless documents reveal the inexhaustible energy humans have expended throughout history—what they have always done deliberately: killing one another with full awareness. De Gaulle is not portrayed in the best light, although the military feats of the expeditionary force led by Generals Leclerc and de Lattre are repeatedly cited. While General Eisenhower, who later became President of the United States (though that didn't stop him from carrying out some shady operations in Central America), was a genuine war leader, de Gaulle comes across more as a media spokesperson for the "Free French Forces," a great politician and master of political opportunism.
One remembers the mistrust the Allies felt toward him. But we need only cite this scandalous anecdote. In England, de Gaulle had established his headquarters in a London building provided to him. In the middle of the night, his aide-de-camp came to inform him that an invasion of North Africa had just occurred. Furious, the general, unaware that his quarters had been bugged by the British, retorted:
"Well, I hope they give the Vichy troops a good beating!"
How could one be surprised, after such a scandalous remark, that Anglo-American allies remained suspicious of such a man, a veritable swollen vessel of pride?
The series offers a brief glimpse into the role played by Admiral Darlan, the Vichy commander-in-chief of French forces in North Africa. Secretly contacted by a French officer, he agreed to switch sides by ordering his troops not to resist the Allied landing. He was quickly assassinated as he left his office by a man who was swiftly executed without trial. Although it's unthinkable to equate these two figures, the assassination style echoes that of Kennedy: a group quickly produced a suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, skillfully manipulated and murdered before he could speak, by the mobster Ruby during his transfer to prison.
When we speak of "the theater of operations," the term seems fitting. For millennia, men have been sent to fight and kill one another, skillfully manipulated by politicians.
When we place ourselves within "the other's system of thought," we rarely find the cynicism we imagine, but rather a strong sense of "moral righteousness." In the end, the one who was in the right was simply the one who won. Depending on which side you were on, you were either a terrorist or a resistance fighter, a partisan.
For this reason, it's interesting to take a look at Hitler's 25-point program, little known:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_en_25_points
This document at least partly explains the passive adherence of a people severely affected by the economic depression following the 1929 crisis, bled dry by war reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, which forced them to pay their...