In the Service of the Enemy: The Traitor in French Occupation Narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether they are based on historical fact or imagined characters, most narratives that attempt to deal with the socio-political complexities and moral dilemmas of the German Occupation of France in the Second World War draw attention to the traitor, sometimes perceived as an exemplary or caricatural figure of otherness: morally and physically repellent and beyond redemption (witness some portraits of Laval). To their adversaries and victims, individuals who betray family, friends or larger social groups by shifting their allegiance to enemy forces may embody a whole array of negative qualities (duplicity, venality, opportunism, cowardice, obduracy, etc.). More dispassionate observers and commentators soon realise, however, that condemning or even identifying traitors is rather more problematic, when enemies and allies change positions for tactical, strategic or ideological reasons as the war develops. Thus, depending on the standpoint adopted, not just the Germans and their acolytes, but also the British, the communists, Gaullist dissidents, the Vichy government, the Jews and resistance terrorists may all be denounced as enemies by some significant group of French people in the course of the Occupation. Whereas exposing, confronting and chastising traitors is often an integral dramatic and proselytising element in early pro-resistance narratives, unsurprisingly novels and memoirs less hostile to collaboration adopt a more relativistic posture towards authority and allegiance. Relatively few fictional or autobiographical works explore the motivation and behaviour of traitors in much depth or with much sympathy. This essay discusses the representation, function and historical significance of the traitor, drawing on the work of a small sample of writers who have offered a more nuanced portrait of this figure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".