Nations examine their own histories in the light of man's cruelties and his nature

Coco Chanel, celebrated in German museum and by others for her fashions for women

As France has grappled with its own domestic issues,  news reports related evidence the famous designer, Coco Chanel, collaborated with the German government during World War II, a fact that fostered reflection of the country's history in the light of man's nature, something people of other countries have had to do as well.


In the midst of criticism about torture allowed by the US government under George Bush , there are examples in Europe of how nations respond when they are invaded or when they fear for the lives of their citizens that in the long view of history has brought embarrassment to their governments.  This included some French citizens who collaborated with the Nazis, some through fear and some voluntarily.

It was fear for the lives of its citizens, and the fact that Germany had successfully invaded other countries in its march across Europe, literally taking over whole governments, history tells us, that brought France to sign an agreement with Germany that allowed the latter to govern the Northern part of France, while the French government continued to predominate the South.  The city of Vichy, south of Paris, became the seat of what was known as the Vichy government.

Humanitarian crises occur throughout history, and one of the greatest concerns had to do with those who collaborated with the Nazis during their reign of terror across Europe that occurred throughout the 1930's and 1940's.  France was overcome by German troops and there were those individuals who secured personal benefits by siding with the enemy.  Chanel was one of them.

And as France examines its own mistakes, many maintain that it was not pressure from the German occupiers that made some French citizens perform acts of cruelty or ignore the plight of the helpless in their midst, but their own greed, apathy and prejudices.

In Paris' City Hall an exhibit  called"They Were Children" relates how Jewish children were sent from France to Nazi death camps during the Second World War.  The exhibit contains letters that were written in French to the people of France, by children who were pleading for their lives.

After years of historical work, "we've come to an image that is a lot closer to reality: that the French state, Vichy, made decisions it wasn't forced to make. It acted with a certain independence, a certain autonomy in any case," French sociologist Michel Wieviorka said. "So let's not rewrite history in the other direction. Let's not exonerate all the people who collaborated."

As the world watches the United States struggle with its conscience over the issue of torture that was used on prisoners following 9/11, other nations have had their turn examining decisions made by their own people during times of stress.

The problem, as those schooled in ethics declare, is that people continue to make the same mistakes in those times of stress, in different ways and under different pressures.   The lesson, however, remains one that every nation must learn in response to its own mistakes, even as countries who have made their own errors cast stones at others for doing in some form what they have done as well.  

America is a relatively young country when viewed through the prism of history.  Europe's much longer, documented times, has seen the awfulness of man's treatment of his fellows to include extreme torture, explained as a means of creating uniformity of spiritual views, to bring people in line with their governments, or to suppress opposition or to buttress strength from internal strife.  It is a pattern that the students of both history and ethics continue to examine with concern.  For is it man's nature to behave in terrible ways?

Those who discuss the ethics involving war, torture and violence wonder whether man's nature is to be cruel  and whether attempts to bring peace are futile for that reason.  Others worry that if torture is accepted, then it may come to pass that nobody will be punished for virtually anything that could be considered inhumane so long as it is deemed man's nature or done in the name of a group's special needs or protection.

Anthropologists, in looking at man, maintain the distinction between man and all other creatures is man's ability to use language and thought.  This means man can learn from the past, record it, assess what is learned in the present, and use it for the future, all because of that language ability.

It is that issue that may be man's platform for change, for those who see man as having a soul, spirit, conscience and guide must also address how they view their own teachings and if that view creates divisions, hate and discord then those views must necessarily change to one that reminds everyone of the dictum that comes from poetry and faith: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

For it is man's soul that sees its past, its present and its future.