Coco Chanel and the Nazis

[NovaKart]

I came across something about her and association with the Nazis during the Nazi occupation of France. Not that she necessarily had an ideological alignment with them but that she had a relationship with a German diplomat. I barely know anything about her and was wondering about that.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: Seeing as how this thread is about Nazis, I'm just going to state up front that if this thread devolves into fighting and flaming it will be shut down. Keep calm and carry on.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I came across something about her and association with the Nazis during the Nazi occupation of France. Not that she necessarily had an ideological alignment with them but that she had a relationship with a German diplomat. I barely know anything about her and was wondering about that.

Are you asking if the German diplomat was confirmed to be a Nazi? Not all Germans were.

 

[Hrothbern]

I came across something about her and association with the Nazis during the Nazi occupation of France. Not that she necessarily had an ideological alignment with them but that she had a relationship with a German diplomat. I barely know anything about her and was wondering about that.

Lots of the establishment in many, many countries incl France, in the period between WW1 and WW2, had convictions that were kind of similar to those in Germany.
Though highly unarticulated and fragmented
Artists, authors, intellectuals, celebrities, etc in their private social lifes flying in droves like moths towards that burning candle

 

[H4run]

@Hrothbern and Hugo Boss also, they closely tied with Nazi. And Heidegger. Then we got Nietzsche's sister and "works".

 

[Senethro]

Do you ever look back on the Allies and Axis and think that both sides look more like each other than the Allies do us? I guess the passage of time will do that to every conflict. Even if Hitler's Germany was the worst, there was plenty of genocides to go around, though somehow these days we seem loathe to acknowledge it.

 

[Lexicus]

From le wik:

Declassified archival documents unearthed by biographer Hal Vaughan reveal that the French Préfecture de Police had a document on Chanel in which she was described as "Couturier and perfumer. Pseudonym: Westminster. Agent reference: F 7124. Signalled as suspect in the file" (Pseudonyme: Westminster. Indicatif d'agent: F 7124. Signalée comme suspecte au fichier).[42][6]:140 For Vaughan, this was a piece of revelatory information linking Chanel to German intelligence operations. Anti-Nazi activist Serge Klarsfeld declared, "It is not because Chanel had a spy number that she was necessarily personally implicated. Some informers had numbers without being aware of it." ("Ce n'est pas parce que Coco Chanel avait un numéro d'espion qu'elle était nécessairement impliquée personnellement. Certains indicateurs avaient des numéros sans le savoir").[43]

Vaughan establishes that Chanel committed herself to the German cause as early as 1941 and worked for General Walter Schellenberg, chief of the German intelligence agency Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service) and the military intelligence spy network Abwehr (Counterintelligence) at the Reich Main Security Office (Reichssicherheitshauptamt) in Berlin.[6]:xix At the end of the war, Schellenberg was tried by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, and sentenced to six years' imprisonment for war crimes. He was released in 1951 owing to incurable liver disease and took refuge in Italy. Chanel paid for Schellenberg's medical care and living expenses, financially supported his wife and family, and paid for Schellenberg's funeral upon his death in 1952.[6]:205–07

Suspicions of Coco Chanel's involvement first began when German tanks entered Paris and began the Nazi occupation. Chanel immediately sought refuge in the deluxe Hotel Ritz, which was also used as the headquarters of the German military. It was at the Hotel Ritz where she fell in love with Baron Hans Gunther von Dincklage working in the German embassy close to the Gestapo. When the Nazi occupation of France began, Chanel decided to close her store, claiming a patriotic motivation behind such decision. However, when she moved into the same Hotel Ritz that was housing the German military, her motivations became clear to many. While many women in France were punished for “horizontal collaboration” with German officers, Chanel faced no such action. At the time of the French liberation in 1944, Chanel left in a note in her store window explaining Chanel No. 5 to be free to all GIs. During this time, she fled to Switzerland to avoid criminal charges for her collaborations as a Nazi spy.[38] After the liberation, she was known to have been interviewed in Paris by Malcolm Muggeridge, who at the time was an officer in British Military intelligence, about her relationship with the Nazis during the occupation of France.[44]

 

[yung.carl.jung]

@Hrothbern And Heidegger. Then we got Nietzsche's sister and "works".

I read Nietzsche and Heidi and see honestly close to zero nazi or fascist ideology in their work. especially Freddy. his intellectual legacy is seen in anarchism, psychology, art and literature, even post structuralists like Foucault. zionists and fascists tried to co opt him. there is little substantial basis for that, imo.

The German philosopher Martin Heidegger, who was (with great harm to his subsequent reputation) an active member of the Nazi Party, himself noted that everyone in his day was either 'for' or 'against' Nietzsche while claiming that this thinker heard a "command to reflect on the essence of a planetary domination." Alan D. Schrift cites this passage and writes, "That Heidegger sees Nietzsche heeding a command to reflect and prepare for earthly domination is of less interest to me than his noting that everyone thinks in terms of a position for or against Nietzsche. In particular, the gesture of setting up 'Nietzsche' as a battlefield on which to take one's stand against or to enter into competition with the ideas of one's intellectual predecessors or rivals has happened quite frequently in the twentieth century."[26]

he was, primarily, used to advance whatever agenda was popular.

 

[H4run]

I read Nietzsche and Heidi and see honestly close to zero nazi or fascist ideology in their work. especially Freddy. his intellectual legacy is seen in anarchism, psychology, art and literature, even post structuralists like Foucault. zionists and fascists tried to co opt him. there is little substantial basis for that, imo.

I really pause for the moment when you mentioned Heidi and Freddy, I thought you are talking about this girl:

As you know Heidi joined Nazi's party in 1933, I'm not really familiar with his thought, it's quite hard to read and the translation that I read was not that good, hence I cannot really speak about his thought and how it affiliates with Nazi.

About Freddy, actually it is his sister who was closely affiliated with Nazi that was using his works and interpreted it in a way that is in line with the party ideology, including her "claim" of Nietzsche anti-semitism. The ideas of struggle and war among man as a kind of dialectic process to creates better human; the will to power also was used as a foundation of Nazi's mentality and psychology; the superman ideas and how the superman walk among mankind like a complete human walking among the apes-the use of Ubermench among the Nazi soldier were common; or his anti-communism, anti egalitarian and anti-democracy view and many other aspects of his thought that is in-line with Nazism might be the reason that the Nazi elites chose him among the other thinker as a kind of proto fascist.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

yeah I know about his sister. what a wicked witch she was

the superman ideas and how the superman walk among mankind like a complete human walking among the apes-the use of Ubermench among the Nazi soldier were common

The Übermensch is not (as most people believe) really a biologically superior human being, nor is he especially strong or anything. Essentially, the Übermensch is someone who makes both his will and his internal order (of values, morals, etc.) completely independent of outside influences and societal pressure. If you wanted to be polemic, you could say the Übermensch is simply a free-thinker.

anti egalitarian and anti-democracy view and many other aspects of his thought that is in-line with Nazism might be the reason that the Nazi elites chose him among the other thinker as a kind of proto fascist.

yes definitely, I agree with you there.

The ideas of struggle and war among man as a kind of dialectic process to creates better human; the will to power also was used as a foundation of Nazi's mentality and psychology

Again I agree with you here, these are the only ideas of Nietzsche that really do have something in common with the "philosophy" behind national socialism. However the question arises whether those Nat Soc ideas were built on Nietzsche, or whether Nietzsche was simply used to give them prestige, credibility, etc., but wasn't really influential.

 

[Lexicus]

The Übermensch is not (as most people believe) really a biologically superior human being, nor is he especially strong or anything. Essentially, the Übermensch is someone who makes both his will and his internal order (of values, morals, etc.) completely independent of outside influences and societal pressure. If you wanted to be polemic, you could say the Übermensch is simply a free-thinker.

I never quite escaped the feeling that the Ubermensch is designed exactly to be a parody of what happens if you take the basic propositions of liberal philosophy, with its methodological individualism, seriously.

 

[H4run]

The Übermensch is not (as most people believe) really a biologically superior human being, nor is he especially strong or anything. Essentially, the Übermensch is someone who makes both his will and his internal order (of values, morals, etc.) completely independent of outside influences and societal pressure. If you wanted to be polemic, you could say the Übermensch is simply a free-thinker.

This is what I'm not getting while reading Zarathustra, either that or Nietzsche contradicting himself. According to Nietzsche's analogy one should defeat the dragon in order to become the Ubermench, many commentator interpret the dragon in this case as a universal moral value-any kind of set value that limit us, but the question is, can it be that what Nietzsche trying to destroyed with his axe is not a "universal moral value? but a particular moral value?

In many occasion Nietzsche show his resentment to moral value that adhere to impulse repression, to sympathy (which he translates it as pity), mercy and other kind of moral set (like we found in Christianity or Budhism) as a weakness or a ideological hypocrisy, he stated somewhere that Christianity as a religion is holding on to the utopian reality that its follower even not bother to follow or take seriously.

In return for that he also condone a particular set of morality that is represent power, freedom, embracing (not avoiding or eliminating) conflict and suffering as a source of power and wisdom. What I caught from him is that a raw and naked might is good/truth or the universal set of morality according to him, this is pretty much the ideology behind most of his quotation and his lamentation of the decadency of his contemporary society. his quotation that stated that it is not a justified cause that define a good war, but a good war will justified all the cause reflects exactly this. He is not against a moral system, he is up to destroy a set of moral system that what he believes full of hypocrisy and emanating weakness in the society, he suggest a man should be honest about their savagery, their fire or their impulse in them and embrace it as a morality.

Just drag all of that from my memorty of Nietzsche, I haven't read his works for more than 10 years.

However the question arises whether those Nat Soc ideas were built on Nietzsche, or whether Nietzsche was simply used to give them prestige, credibility, etc., but wasn't really influential.

Really Jung, it can be both in my view, both are really possible.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

This is what I'm not getting while reading Zarathustra, either that or Nietzsche contradicting himself. According to Nietzsche's analogy one should defeat the dragon in order to become the Ubermench, many commentator interpret the dragon in this case as a universal moral value-any kind of set value that limit us, but the question is, can it be that what Nietzsche trying to destroyed with his axe is not a "universal moral value? but a particular moral value?

In many occasion Nietzsche show his resentment to moral value that adhere to impulse repression, to sympathy (which he translates it as pity), mercy and other kind of moral set (like we found in Christianity or Budhism) as a weakness or a ideological hypocrisy, he stated somewhere that Christianity as a religion is holding on to the utopian reality that its follower even not bother to follow or take seriously.

This is where I mostly agree with. He had some real issues with empathy, probably related to his personal life. This spiraled into a hatred of Christianity, religion in general, and their value systems.

In return for that he also condone a particular set of morality that is represent power, freedom, embracing (not avoiding or eliminating) conflict and suffering as a source of power and wisdom.

On this I'm still with you

What I caught from him is that a raw and naked might is good/truth or the universal set of morality according to him, this is pretty much the ideology behind most of his quotation and his lamentation of the decadency of his contemporary society.

I didn't really get this from Zarathustra, but this may also be due to me reading in German and you reading in translation, or simply due to me not remembering the book enough. Different translators view Nietsche differently, of course.

his quotation that stated that it is not a justified cause that define a good war, but a good war will justified all the cause reflects exactly this. He is not against a moral system, he is up to destroy a set of moral system that what he believes full of hypocrisy and emanating weakness in the society, he suggest a man should be honest about their savagery, their fire or their impulse in them and embrace it as a morality.

this part I am unsure about, I don't remember anything that speaks for/against this. always love discussing with you, it's a joy!

 

[H4run]

This is where I mostly agree with. He had some real issues with empathy, probably related to his personal life. This spiraled into a hatred of Christianity, religion in general, and their value systems.

The lost of his father and his disappointment over Schopenhauer play a big role.

I didn't really get this from Zarathustra, but this may also be due to me reading in German and you reading in translation, or simply due to me not remembering the book enough. Different translators view Nietsche differently, of course.

this part I am unsure about, I don't remember anything that speaks for/against this. always love discussing with you, it's a joy!

I think he put large focus on decadency of the society in "Twilight of the Idol" and "The Anti Christ", decadency is a moral or cultural decline, in genealogy of morality the Christian set of morality is that of slave morality, while relieving what the Christian restrained is his concept of the master morality; good is power, strength and nobility, while bad according to him are weakness, cowardice and hypocrisy . So actually his "will of power" is a set of morality (the concept of truth or falsehood, goodness or badness) itself. But the definition of its morality is not being derived for the betterment of society, or worst according to him if it is judged by how its served to be useful for the society, but it's more focus on the individual.

But man, I will not re-read Nietzsche, now I will read something like "how to manage your team" or "what is the best question that you ask during the interview"

 

[H4run]

this part I am unsure about, I don't remember anything that speaks for/against this. always love discussing with you, it's a joy!

I did some googling to refresh my mind, he did talk about his doubt regarding objective morality, nevertheless, I think this is the impression that I got at that time when I thought he is conflicting himself, it seems beside he doubts about objective morality, but at the same time he is destroying a set of morality for his own set of morality. For me morality and ethics are set of definition that defining what is right and what is wrong (morality), and what is good and bad (ethics). Nietzsche in this case I believe is not a real nihilist, he got his own set of morality.