{"word_count": 909, "character_count": 6668}
"I pulled the thread of lies and everything came[1]":the deliberately provocative title of the book by the French politicianPhilippe de Villiers provoked many reactions from European historians. DeVilliers had indeed denounced European integration as the work of the Nazis andthe CIA, accusing Robert Schuman in particular of having worked under theorders of Pétain during German occupation. On 28 March 2019, the Frenchnewspaper Le Monde published the response of historians reacting to the"falsification of the history of the Union", denouncing a biasedinterpretation of history[2]. Thecontroversy continued with interposed responses. This event testifies to theway in which the study of the Europe of war and its reconstruction stillconcentrates many political and ideological issues today, of which we must ofcourse be fully aware. It is therefore no coincidence that the colloquium onEuropean resistance referred to this recent controversy.The German Historical Institute (IHA) in Paris hostedfrom 8 to 10 April 2019 the conference "Weare fighting for a Europe of peace"-European projects in the German andEuropean resistances 1939-1945[3].The aim was to provide new insights into European resistance movements, builtin opposition to National Socialism. Indeed, it is at the heart of thesemovements that multiple plans and projects for Europe have emerged: commonEuropean solutions were considered an essential condition for ensuring peaceand economic development, and thus for avoiding future conflicts.Despite this, the importance of the Resistancemovements in the initiation of European integration has been overlooked,considering 1945 as the "zero" year of this process. This view isbased, among other things, on the expression "zero hour" (Stunde Null) attributed to the period ofGerman reconstruction after Nazism. A historiographical rethinking is thereforenecessary. To underline this renewal of thinking, Stefan Martens insisted atthe opening on the various organizations set up by historians such as the Muséede la Libération de Paris (an initiative of historian Christine Levisse-Touzé)and the Memorial of the German Resistance in Berlin. Mr Martens also insisted at length on the renewal of thehistory of the German resistance (Gedenkstättedeutscher Widerstand), through the figure of the German historian PeterSteinbach, author of Die Gesichter desWiderstands (The Faces of theResistance, 2004).It was this rediscovery of the history of Germanresistance and exile during the Second World War that, in my opinion, generatedthe most interest.&#160; Indeed, this complex history is still little known,compared to studies on European resistance in the occupied countries. Thehistorian Michael Kissener was thus able to present a typology of Germanresistances.&#160; It has also been shown thatthe evolution of historiography has been greatly enriched by Franco-Germancooperation in this field.However, the conference did not focus solely on this Franco-Germanhistoriographical dynamic, and left much room for case studies from EasternEurope. The presentation that impressed me the most was Lubor Jilek's ondiplomats and soldiers (Polish and Czech) exiled in London. This presentationhighlighted spaces of «&#160;secrets&#160;» between exiled people andespecially different aims between them: Poles wishing to set up a grouping ofsmall European countries, while Czechs preferred to ally themselves with thegreat Soviet power. This study by Lubor Jilek shows the importance of crossingnational histories, of questioning dialogues between resistance actors. Theovercoming of strictly national experiences has thus been strongly recommendedby Corine Defrance, who advocates a transnational approach to history. Thetransnational approach is also at the heart of our historical research about theEuropean Postal and Telecommunications Union.Wilfried Loth concluded that it is a mistake to focusthe study of resistance only with the prism of diplomatic history. Similarly,this idea of a "united Europe" must be qualified as an objective ofresistance, but not essential, contrary to what Hubert Halin had put forward inhis book in 1967[4].What we can learn from this conference is thatwhatever the way we look at Europe through experiences of resistance, we areled to reconsider our methods and practices as historians. We should be used tocross the scales of analysis. These questions about resistance and Europe arestill subject to debate and controversy; as we saw in the case of Philippe DeVilliers' book. Europe is therefore still at the heart of the debates, andtherefore a hitoriographical renewal. We should also note the recent efforts topromote a new reading of the European projects that existed during the SecondWorld War. It is the case with the Moscow Congress of December 2018 onasymmetric Europe and ideologies during the Second World War. This congress wasorganised by the International Association for Contemporary History in Europe(AICHE, Association Internationale d’Histoirede l’Europe Contemporaine). The European history of the 20th century hasbeen marked by an alternation between common European projects and aquestioning of these projects by different visions. A significant differenceappears between "old Europe" and the one born after the First WorldWar, known according to custom as "Central Europe" for some,"Eastern" for others, or even "Central-Eastern" or"Danube". The divergences between these "two Europe", asFrancis Delaisi already pointed out in the inter-war period, are glaring andare expressed throughout the 20th century. They are at work in the Versaillessystem, as through the Hitlerian project for Europe. They are still presentduring the Cold War.The purpose of the Moscow conference was therefore to explore this asymmetry. Like the both conferences on resistance movements, it challenges realities that have been taken for granted. It also questions the existence of one or more Europe(s) during the Second World War, while seeking not to focus the study solely on “Western Europe” to the detriment of "Eastern Europe". This is further evidence of the renewed interest for the period 1939-1945.(V.A.)[1] DeVilliers, Philippe, J’ai tiré sur le fildu mensonge et tout est venu, Paris,&#160;Fayard, 2019.[2]URL&#160;: http://sirice.eu/l-umr-sirice/vie-de-l-umr/tribune-du-monde-d-historiens-en-reponse-au-livre-de-philippe-de-villiers[3]URL&#160;; https://www.dhi-paris.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/DHI_Paris/05_Veranstaltungen/02_Tagung/2019/2019_Programm_Tagung_Europaplaene_final.pdf[4] Halin,Hubert, L’Europe unie, objectif majeur dela Résistance, Paris,&#160; Union des Résistants pour une Europe Unie(U.R.P.E.), 1967