La propagande antisémite contre les protestations épiscopales de l’été 1942
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up until August 1942, French bishops did not publically denounce the two “Jewish statutes adopted by the Vichy government which were actually measures to allow persecution. This silence raises an important question whose answer has components that relate to the fact that the Holy See did not think it appropriate to intervene in the internal legislation of a country. This had been the approach of Pope Pius XI in 1938 when Italy adopted anti-Jewish laws. But several bishops continued to approve the double protectorate doctrine in force in Papal States until 1848 which affirmed that Jews do not have access to all professions, but the State must protect their families and is not allowed to confiscate their property.The bishops’ silence opened the door to collaborationist newspapers and publications justifying the spoliation measures and the requirement to wear the Yellow Star based on Papal texts from the Middle Ages. The clandestine journal Cahiers du Temoignage chretien dismantled this propaganda during the autumn of 1941, but one had to wait for the protest of the Archbishop of Toulouse, Monseigneur Saliege, in order to hear a Papal denouncement of the round-ups that took place in the summer of 1942.Should we see in Monseigneur Saliege’s letter of denouncement only an isolated voice of an enlightened high priest, or is it rather an authorized statement by the Holy See, i.e. the personal word of Pope Pius XII? Several elements allow us to confirm the second option, since in fact the Nonce and Episcopate were making an effort to discredit collaborationist propaganda, orchestrated by both Laval’s government and German censorship, and to support the authority and voice of the Christian Church.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".