1. Historiography of the Ribbentrop- Molotov pact in France since 1945 Professor Bernard Lachaise University of Bordeaux

2. Introduction French historians have not worked a lot on the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact (except Yves SANTAMARIA). Most of them are specialists in communism (ex : Jean-Paul BRUNET, Stéphane COURTOIS) ; only René GIRAULT is a specialist of international relations In France, the story of the pact cannot be dissociated - from the Cold war - from the weight of the communist party « the French passion » (Marc Lazar) The study of the French historiography of the pact consists in investigating the evolution of the place of the pact in scientific publications Our approach will consist in investigating - the analysis of the contents of the agreement - the origins of the pact - the significance of the event

3. I- The content of the German- Soviet Pact : from « agreement » to « alliance », from « non-agression » to « crime against peace »

4. I During the fifties (with Pierre RENOUVIN or Jean-Baptiste DUROSELLE), quite neutral terms were used to designate the text signed on August 23, 1939 (« treaty », « agreement », « pact »). The focus was ont the content of the public document but the secret protocol xas already presented as a « much more important text ». The second treaty (september 28th) was presented more briefly and always separately. From the seventies, both texts were linked and historians talk about « two german- soviet pacts » More recently, it is the alliance which is highlighted by French historians (François FURET; Stéphane COURTOIS) In half a century, the pact has been read less and less as a « simple » diplomatic treaty but as a strong political act and show the serious soviet responsability. The words explicit this evolution : the « german-soviet pact » was replaced by « the soviet-nazi alliance »

5. II- At the origins of the German-Soviet Pact : Staline as the main culprit ?

6. II From the first texts on the German-Soviet pact, historians wondered about the motivations of the signees. But they also questioned more and more the responsabilities of Western democracies and of Poland Concerning Hitler, historiography has not really evolded. With the pact, Hitler can attack the West without having a second front in the East and also achieve hisgoal of wiping out the Polish state. The motives of Stalin are more difficult to distinguish (Pierre RENOUVIN) : several irons in the fire ? Realistic politics of Russia ? Polish refusal ? Assimilation by Moscou of the « western plutocracy » and « Hiltelerian capitalism » ? In French historiography, Poland and western democracies are during a long time accused of bearing responsability for Stalin’s decision From the 1990’s, after the collapse of communism, the responsability of Westerners was minimized in favour of an almost exclusively ideological interpretation in which Staline is to blame Stephane Courtois writes : « as long as the criminal dimension of the alliance with Hitler is not clearly recognized (…), the scars that it left on the body of Europe will not heal… »

7. III- The effects of the German-Soviet pact : « the scars on the body of Europe » (Stéphane Courtois)

8. III The responsability of the pact in the war is claimed by all and gives rise to a consensus, from Pierre RENOUVIN to Stéphane COURTOIS. The analysis of the effects of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact on the future of Central Europe occupies an important place in the writing of French historians, specially for Poland Until the collapse of the Soviet bloc between 1989 and 1991 and the entry of most of the peoples of Europe into the European Union, rarely have the distant consequences of the pact for the peoples of Europe been evoked in French historiography The historians of communism are the ones who focus the most on the long-term effects of the pact on the PCF (French communist party) After 1945, due to their committment to the Resistance, the French communistsfound it difficult to evoke the pact. Until 1956, they adopted a stance of denying the facts And the pact is still a very controversial topic in France

9. Conclusion After half a century of French historiography, there has been a great evolution…for many reasons : - the opening of the archives - the collapse of communism and USSR…and in France The historiography of the pact should not be dominated by anticommunism : France which contrary to Central Europe, did not experience Soviet domination after the nazi domination should be able to avoid a manichean analysis.