3 questions to F. Théofilakis, Chairman of the Scientific Committee

Historian, Senior Lecturer – Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne, Chairman of the Scientific Committee

You chair the scientific committee of the future museum.

The main document collection is the Kennedy collection, donated by the daughter of Colonel Kennedy, the camp commander. How did you go about finding other documentary collections?

Creating a museum about wartime captivity in the aftermath of the Second World War means finding the resources to tell the story of this long-forgotten past. And the challenge is no small one: more than ten million Wehrmacht soldiers were taken prisoner after the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany on May 8, 1945. Beyond that, entire societies are concerned, from those who detained the defeated, usually to use them for reconstruction, to those in occupied Germany who are waiting for a son, father, husband, worker, etc. to return home.

The documentary research was therefore carried out precisely to show, hear and understand the multitude of protagonists involved in this history of captivity. Starting with the prisoners themselves, from their capture to their liberation, considering their conditions of captivity; but also the authorities, both military and civilian, who had to manage them, make them work, and “re-educate” them. We also take into account the German families and communities who rallied to their cause. Not forgetting humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, which sought to ensure compliance with the 1929 Convention in favor of prisoners of war.

This multitude of points of view has led me and my students to the archives of international organizations, to understand humanitarian interventions and their effects; to national archives, which give an idea of the solutions found to what was then known as the “POW problem”; and to local archives, which document, as closely as possible, the application of decisions, as well as contacts between captives and the surrounding population. Finally, great attention has been paid to the testimonies produced by prisoners, which can be found in both public and private archives.

This documentary research – initiated with the museum project and destined to continue after its opening – thus extends well beyond the national framework to consider how Europeans emerged from the war, how these Germans eventually emerged from Nazism, and what traces this captivity may have left in our societies.

How did you go about selecting and researching archives concerning other German prison camps in Europe?

Making captivity the core of this European history implied adopting a comparative approach: one that starts with the CCPWE19 , opened by the Americans between Foucarville and Ravenoville, but compares it with other prison camps in Europe in the second half of the 1940s. Comparisons allow us to work on similarities and differences, and to highlight the specificities of each situation before looking for the causes. In addition to this pedagogical advantage, comparison also highlights the diversity of solutions to the same question offered by the states and societies holding German prisoners: What should be done with the defeated? How to deal with them?

What to do with the defeated?
How do you treat them?

That’s why I’ve chosen three other camps on a line from the UK to the USSR: a camp in British hands in the United Kingdom, in a country that had not experienced German occupation but was still scarred in 1945 by the experience of the English campaign and the destruction of the “Blitz”; a camp in French hands in a France that was certainly at the victors’ table, but had emerged bloodless from the experience of occupation and saw Germany more than ever as a threat; finally, a camp in Polish hands in a society terribly scarred by Nazi occupation, a state reconstituted after 1945 and a regime under Soviet influence. Taking visitors through four German prison camps will provide an opportunity to question and deconstruct the representations associated with the figure of the vanquished, as Nazi, as occupier, but also as worker, and even as comrade.

Visitors will be able to see how captivity regimes may have depended on local conditions, but also on representations of Germany inherited from the conflict, or on geopolitical considerations between the Great Alliance and the start of the Cold War. Lastly, the different camps will offer visitors as many entry points to link the story told in the future museum to what they heard in their families and to what their national history conveyed.

What partnerships would you like to set up to develop the archive holdings in preparation for future temporary exhibitions?

The museum’s project is not only innovative in terms of the theme it tackles and the perspectives it embraces, but also in terms of the partnerships it seeks to establish: by involving major institutions, both French and international, from the outset, we are wagering that the history of captivity linked to the Second World War can only be written, in the ^21st century, with the help of institutions that preserve the point of view of the protagonists of captivity. We therefore approached the Bundesarchiv in Germany, the International Committee of the Red Cross in Switzerland, the National Archives and Records Administration in the USA, and the Service historique de la Défense in France. All responded positively.

These partnerships offer the promise of world-renowned expertise and abundant archival resources. We can now look forward to a rich program of temporary exhibitions, which will extend some of the themes and questions raised in the permanent galleries, and open up captivity to contemporary treatment, for example, in the light of current conflicts.