¹ The strikes have inspired an interesting historiography. See in particular Prost, Antoine, “Les Grèves de Juin 1936”, and the ensuing discussion, in: Léon Blum, Chef de Gouvernement 1936–1937 (Paris, 1967), pp. 69–107Google Scholar; Lefranc, Georges, “Problématique des Grèves françaises de mai-juin 1936”, in Essais sur les problèmes socialistes et syndi-caux (Paris, 1970), pp. 127–40Google Scholar; id., Le Mouvement Syndical sous la Troisième République (Paris, 1967), pp. 335–47. The “spontaneous” thesis supported by Prost and Lefranc is opposed, at least for the coal mines of the Nord and Pas-de-Calais, by Hainsworth, Raymond, “Les Grèves du Front populaire de mai et juin 1936: Une nouvelle analyse fondée sur l'étude de ces grèves dans le bassin houiller du Nord et du Pas-de-Calais”, in: Le Mouvement Social, No 96 (1976), pp. 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² On employer resistance to the reforms achieved in June and July 1936, see René Rémond and Janine Bourdin, “Les Forces adverses”, in: Leon Blum, op. cit., pp. 137–59, and the discussion and documents, pp. 160–204; and Jeanneney, Jean-Noël, François Wendel en République: L'Argent et le pouvoir, 1914–1940 (Paris, 1976), pp. 560–74.Google Scholar

³ On working-class discontent, see Mitzman, Arthur, “The French Working Class and the Blum Government”, in: International Review of Social History, IX (1964), pp. 363–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the rise of the left-wing opposition within the SFIO, see Baker, Donald N., “The Politics of Socialist Protest in France: The Left Wing of the Socialist Party, 1921–39”, in: Journal of Modern History, XLIII (1971), pp. 2–41Google Scholar, and Joubert, Jean-Paul, Révolution-naires de la S.F.I.O.: Marceau Pivert et le pivertisme (Paris, 1977).Google Scholar La Révolution Prolétarienne provided regular accounts of the discontent in the factories of the Paris region in 1936–37.

⁴ Brower, Daniel T., The New Jacobins: The French Communist Party and the Popular Front (Ithaca, N.Y., 1969), chs 5–6.Google Scholar

⁵ Antoine Prost estimates that the CGT never attained more than 3.8 million members in the Popular Front period, while Georges Lefranc accepts the figure of around 5 million emanating from the CGT itself. Prost, , La C.G.T. à l'époque du Front Populaire 1934–1939: Essai de description numérique (Paris, 1964), pp. 42Google Scholar; Lefranc, Le Mouvement Syndical, op. cit., pp. 347–51, 415–16.

⁶ By the end of 1936 the Communists had taken control of the national federations of railroad, construction, textile and metallurgical workers, several “unions dépar-tementales” previously dominated by the ex-confédérés (e.g., in the Somme), and some occupational branches (e.g., the hotel, café and restaurant workers organization). When the CGT and CGTU had merged, they had established an Union des Syndicats for the Paris region, with fifteen representatives for each side on the executive committee; a year later the balance of forces was such that the Communists could claim twenty-three seats to only seven for the ex-confédérés. See Georges Dumoulin, “Colonisation syndicale”, in: Syndicats, 22 January 1937; Decques, “Va-t-on continuer à compromettre l'unité morale des syndicats?”, ibid., 7 January, for details on the Somme and Seine areas; “Le Congres de l'Union des Syndicats de la Région Parisienne”, in: La Révolution Prolétarienne, No 240 (10 February), pp. 463–64Google Scholar; and the comment by Maurice Chambelland, “Renaissance du Syndicalisme”, ibid., p. 461.

⁷ On the growth of the organ, see Rogliano, Marie-France, “L'Anticommunisme dans la C.G.T.: ‘Syndicats’”, in: Le Mouvement Social, No 87 (1974), pp. 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Communist “colonization” of the CGT was a major theme of the faction. However, some of its leaders occasionally admitted either that many of the new recruits were more “political” in orientation than syndicalist (Raymond Froideval in Syndicats, 29 April 1937) or that the Communists' primary form of organization – the cellule d'entreprise – simply meant that the Communist unionists were more homogeneous and coherent in outlook than their non-Communist rivals (René Belin, “Les Syndicats et les partis”, ibid., 2 September). Both Prost and Lefranc put far more weight on factors other than “colonization” in their discussions of growing Communist influence within the CGT – although efforts at colonization were made from time to time. Prost, La C.G.T., op. cit., pp. 152–53; Lefranc, Le Mouvement Syndical, pp. 377–78.

⁸ In an effort to explain this phenomenon, Marcus, John T., French Socialism in the Crisis Years, 1933–1936: Fascism and the French Left (New York, 1958), pp. 181–85Google Scholar, attempted to describe the sense of unity in terms of an antifascist “mystique”. For a more recent discussion of the hold of the idea of unity on the Communists and Socialists, see Gelly, Jean-François, “Recherches sur les problèmes de I'unité organique du P.C. et de la S.F.I.O. à travers les sources diverses sur les deux partis, du pacte du 27 juillet 1934 à la fin de l'année 1937” (Mémoire de Maîtrise, Histoire, Paris I, 1974), pp. 17–25.Google Scholar

⁹ For example, see Dupont, Robert, “Propagande spécifiquement socialiste”, in: La Bataille Socialiste, No 92 (January 1936)Google Scholar; Farinet, Emile, “Réflexions sur la propagande”, in: Le Populaire, 9 December 1935Google Scholar; and E. Gaillard, “Service de propagande”, ibid., 26 May 1936.

¹⁰ The rule was originally formulated to control Maurice Maurin's faction, known as Action Socialiste, which was advocating fraternization with the Communists. See the resolution of the Clermont-Ferrand congress, 1926, in Parti Socialiste, XXIVe Congrès National, Rapports, 1927, pp. 8–9. The rule was next applied in a dramatic way against Socialists who joined the Amsterdam-Pleyel movement.

¹¹ Pivert, Marceau, addressing the 1936 national congress. Parti Socialiste, XXXIIIe Congrès National, Compte rendu sténographique, 1936, pp. 155–56.Google Scholar

¹² See Zeller, Fred, Trois points, c'est tout (Paris, 1976), pp. 56–91Google Scholar; Rabaut, Jean, Tout est possible! Les “Gauchistes” français 1929–1944 (Paris, 1974), pp. 166–203Google Scholar; Guérin, Daniel, Front populaire, révolution manquée: Témoignage militant, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1970), pp. 92–98Google Scholar; Jacquier, Maurice, Simple Militant (Paris, 1974), pp. 91–94Google Scholar; Craipeau, Yvan, Le Mouvement trotskyste en France (Paris, 1971), pp. 119–51Google Scholar; Praeger, Jenny, “La Fédération de la Seine de la Jeunesse Socialiste, entre 1934 et 1939” (Mémoire de Maîtrise, Histoire, Paris I, 1972), pp. 15–49.Google Scholar

¹³ “Motion pour le Congrès National”, in: La Gauche Révolutionnaire, No 8 (10 May 1936).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Le Populaire, 27 May 1936; reprinted in Rioux, Jean-Pierre, Révolutionnaires du Front populaire: Choix de documents, 1935–1938 (Paris, 1973), pp. 154–58.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Compte rendu, op. cit., p. 167.

¹⁶ Ibid., pp. 137–38.

¹⁷ Ibid., pp. 128–32. In the skirmishing for seats on the CAP Philip was originally left off of the new roster; but when the news reached the floor of the congress the left wing, grateful for Philip's support, quickly offered him a seat from its allotment.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 254. The only published account of the discussions within the resolutions committee was that of Modiano, René, in “Ç'aurait pu être un beau congrès!”, in: La Gauche Révolutionnaire, No 9 (15 June 1936).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Pivert, “Faisons le point”, ibid.

²⁰ Dupont, Robert, “Dans la Seine”, in: Le Populaire, 22 May 1936Google Scholar (La Propagande Socialiste section).

²¹ “A la Fédération Socialiste de la Seine”, ibid., 26 August, and “Agents de Coordination de la Seine”, ibid., 8 September.

²² “A la Fédération Socialiste de la Seine”, loc. cit.

²³ Ibid., 18 September.

²⁴ E.g., “Travailleurs socialistes, prenez note”, ibid., 25 October, which included the following appeals: “Camarades coopérateurs. Sympathisants travaillant à l'entrepôt rue E. Doley sont priés de se réunir demain à 18 heures […] pour fonder une amicale socialiste.” And: “Ets. Bernard Roux, 13e. Réunion des membres du Parti et des sympathisants à 18 heures.”

²⁵ Emile Farinet, “Les Amicales Socialistes d'Entreprise”, ibid., 11 January 1937 (Tribune du Parti section).

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ The Amicales Socialistes' official statutes were approved by the CAP on 20 October 1937. Parti Socialiste, XXXVe Congrès National, Rapports, 1938, pp. 148–51. On the later expansion, see the report entitled “Amicales Socialistes” and dated November 1938 in the Archives de la Préfecture de Police de la Seine, B/A1692 AS (henceforth cited as APP, Dossier).

²⁸ Desphelippon signed the new Bataille Socialiste manifesto published in January 1936, following the split with the Pivertists, but he refused to follow Zyromski in advocating all-out support for the Republicans in Spain. See Zyromski's statement and the editorial “Au revoir!”, in: La Bataille Socialiste, No 97 (November 1936).

²⁹ As we shall see, the Pivertist group eventually attempted to take over the movement in the Paris region; however, Zyromski's followers never appear to have contested the limited role of the Amicales Socialistes. See, for example, the article by Nermond, Louis, “Le Problème des Amicales Socialistes”, in: La Bataille Socialiste, No 109 (May 1938).Google Scholar

³⁰ Jean Leclercq, ibid., No 116 (April 1939).

³¹ Maurice Chambelland discussed the role of the “délégués d'atelier” at length in La Révolution Prolétarienne, No 235 (25 November 1936), pp. 377–83; he was particularly interested in the question of the relations between these delegates and the syndicalist movement, but one can see from his discussion the kinds of opportunities that the elections offered the political parties.

³² “A.S. de l'attitude du Parti Communiste à l'égard des Amicales Socialistes”, 13 January 1937, APP, Dossier. A.S. means “Analyse Synthétique”, a label used to identify analytic as distinct from field reports.

³³ J.-B. Séverac, “Ce que sont nos Amicales Socialistes”, in: Le Populaire, 5 April 1937.

³⁴ “Amicales Socialistes”, November 1938.

³⁵ Desphelippon, Francis, “Les Amicales Socialistes”, in: Almanach Populaire, 1939 (Paris, 1939), pp. 169–71.Google Scholar

³⁶ Boutin, R., reporting for the Bureau of the Amicales Socialistes, in: Le Populaire, 5 March 1939.Google Scholar

³⁷ See note 27.

³⁸ Efforts to quantify the attendance at meetings are baffled by intermittent or impressionistic reporting of crowd estimates by police officials. Among the larger crowds in early 1937 were these: Renault workers (2,000 people, report of 21 March), metallurgical workers (1,200, 27 March), clerks in banks and commercial enterprises (900, 23 May 1937), white-collar workers in the insurance industry (500, 18 February), and civil ser-vacts in the Ministry of Finance (200, 17 April). There were also “large” meetings of railroad workers (25 January), PTT workers (11 March) and a general assembly of members of the Amicales Socialistes in the Paris region (over 2,000, 25 March). Detailed reports can be found in APP, Dossier.

³⁹ “Amicales Socialistes”, November 1938.

⁴⁰ “A.S. des Amicales Socialistes”, 3 October 1937, APP, Dossier.

⁴¹ Report on PCF attitudes, 2 December 1937, APP, Dossier.

⁴² Le Populaire, 9 November 1936. Although the CGT's journal, Le Peuple, gave generous coverage to the council, it made no mention of Lebas's speech.

⁴³ “A.S. de l'attitude du Parti Communiste à l'égard des Amicales Socialistes”, 13 January 1937.

⁴⁴ Séverac, “Ce que sont nos Amicales Socialistes”, loc. cit.

⁴⁵ “En créant les Amicales socialistes, le Parti entend grouper sur le lieu du travail (ateliers, usines, magasins, etc.) et sur le plan professionnel (paysans, artisans, commerçants, intellectuels) les socialistes et les sympathisants socialistes n'appartenant à aucun autre parti politique.” “Réglement des Amicales Socialistes”, in: Parti Socialiste, XXXVe Congrés National, Rapports, 1938, p. 148.

⁴⁶ Remarks by Desphelippon in “Les Amicales Socialistes de la Metallurgie Aviation, Assemblée d'Information”, 11 February 1940, APP, Dossier. At the same meeting Madeleine Finidoni, propaganda secretary for the Amicales Socialistes in 1939–40, said: “Eh bien, à choisir, je préfère être fusillée par des gens de droite que par des commu-nistes. Entre eux et nous, c'est une question de force, de vie ou de mort.” Such anti-Communist expressions were increasingly common in Amicales Socialistes meetings from the end of 1938 to early 1940.

⁴⁷ Théron, a Socialist member of the executive committee of the Syndicat National des Agents des P.T.T., was among those who feared that the Amicales Socialistes might trench on syndicalist activities. “A.S. de l'attitude du Parti Communiste à l'égard des Amicales Socialistes”, 13 January 1937.

⁴⁸ Léon Jouhaux, unity appeal of 22 July, reprinted in full in Syndicats, 29 July 1937; the SFIO's reply was the formal acceptance of the Règlement for the Amicales Socialistes on 22 October.

⁴⁹ This concession was made in the Règlement as follows: “Le mouvement des Amicales est organisé sur la base fédérate, dérogation est faite par les cheminots et les postiers dont les Amicales, tout en restant sous le contrôle et la direction politique de leurs sections locales et de leurs fédérations [du Parti], pourront respectivement organiser entre elles une liaison nationale.” A re-examination of “the special situation” given to the PTT and railroaders' unions was promised by Marceau Pivert, then federal secretary of the Seine federation, “Aux Amicales Socialistes”, in: Juin 36, No 2 (5–20 March 1938).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Séverac, “Ce que sont nos Amicales Socialistes”.

⁵¹ Pivert, Marceau, Pour une politique de classe (Paris, 1937), pp. 23.Google Scholar

⁵² Guérin, Front populaire, op. cit, pp. 180–81; also id., “Où vont les Amicales Socia-listes”, in: Les Cahiers Rouges, December 1937, and “Sortons enfin de l'équivoque!”, ibid., January 1938; and “A.S. des Amicales Socialistes”, 21 December 1937, APP, Dossier.

⁵³ Vrigneaud, A., “L'Intransigeance patronale, cause essentielle du mécontentement”, in: La Vie Ouvrière, No 974 (31 March 1938)Google Scholar; somewhat different figures were ventured by Gratignol, “Pour le secrétariat de l'Union Syndicate des Métallurgistes de la Région Parisienne”, cited in an article entitled “L'Intransigeance patronale, cause de l'élargisse-ment des conflits”, ibid., No 976 (14 April).

⁵⁴ Fridenson, Patrick, Histoire des Usines Renault, I (Paris, 1972), pp. 267–69.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Guérin, , Front populaire, p. 182Google Scholar; Daniel Mayer in Le Populaire, 29–31 December 1937.

⁵⁶ In March, the Pivertist-dominated executive committee of the Seine federation attempted to reorganize the Amicales Socialistes to make them better equipped for action, insisted that all future Amicales publications appear in Juin 36, which would then be distributed in shops and factories, and made an effort to get all Amicales Socialistes' leaders to attend the federation's propaganda “school”. Pivert, “Aux Amicales Socialistes”, loc. cit. When the Pivertists formed their own party (the PSOP), they tried to rectify the SFIO's “errors” in its Groupes Revolutionnaires d'Entreprise, notably by obliging all party members to belong to its sections at their place of work. See “Le P.S.O.P. et les Groupes d'Entreprises (Resolution votee par la Conference)”, in: Juin 36, No 18 (22 July 1938).

⁵⁷ Vincent Auriol in Le Midi Socialists 18 April 1938; see also Daniel Mayer in Le Populaire, 26–27 March.

⁵⁸ Guerin, Front populaire, pp. 183–84.

⁵⁹ Quoted in Guerin, “Nous, Les Pestiferes”, in: Juin 36, N o 6 (1 May 1938).

⁶⁰ “L'Ordre du jour de l'Union des Amicales Socialistes de la Métallurgie”, in: Le Populaire, 28 March 1938; it was signed by Augustin Trésurier and Cuissot.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Bracke, “Ce que disent nos Amicales Socialistes”, and Desphelippon, “Une Reponse a l'Humanite et Ce Soir”, ibid. See also the article entitled “Precisons” demonstrating the deliberate falsification by L'Humanite of a statement on the strike by the Syndicat des Metaux Parisiens; the falsification took the form of an additional paragraph which implied strongly that the Amicales Socialistes were working to prolong the strike. The syndicalist Vie Ouvriere, by contrast with L'Humanite and Ce Soir, never mentioned the Amicales Socialistes and accused the Trotskyites of being a “fifth column” for the employers. Vigny, “Une manoeuvre de grande envergure”, in: La Vie Ouvriere, N o 975 (7 April 1938).

⁶² Guérin, Front populaire, p. 183.

⁶³ For some reason Joubert ignores the tussle within and over the Amicales Socialistes in his monograph, Révolutionnaires de la S.F.I.O., pp. 137–52, where he describes the growing rupture between the Pivertists and the mainstream of the SFIO.

⁶⁴ Le Populaire, 15 May 1938.

⁶⁵ See the detailed articles by Auriol in Le Midi Socialiste, 17–22 April 1938, which explore the role of the Communists and others. As Auriol makes clear, the Communists were pulled in conflicting directions and consequently played a double game. On the one side, as supporters of national defence they wanted to end the strikes and to increase productivity; on the other, as syndicalists, they wanted to keep in touch with the most radical working-class sentiment, to get the best possible settlement for the workers, and to meet the competition of the Trotskyites and other radicals for their clientele in the factories. In private negotiations, they were firm but not provocative; at the level of shop-floor activity, their representatives were leading the chorus of demands for catch-up wages and better working conditions. Although Guerin has persuaded himself in retrospect that the strikes were “spontaneous” (Front populaire, p. 184), he said at the time that “Presque partout l'initiative de la greve a ete prise par les cadres syndicaux de base”, Juin 36, No 4 (8–22 April 1938). A. Habaru, “Les Greves, leurs origines et leurs lec.ons”, reprinted in La Voix Socialiste (Charente-Infdrieure), No 205 (23 April 1938), insisted that it was to divert attention from their own ambiguous role that the Communists made charges against the Trotskyites and Pivertists; the latter groups had only “une influence insignifiante dans les grandes usines”.

⁶⁵ E.g., Georges Dumoulin and André Delmas in Confédération Générale du Travail, Congrès Confederal de Nantes, Rapports Moral et Financier, Compte rendu stenographique des debats, 1938, pp. 184–85, 225-27.

⁶⁵ I did not detect any indication in the police files of a formal or secret agreement between the Syndicats and Amicales Socialistes groups. None was needed: both were tending in the same “pacifist” and anti-Communist directions and towards a later “collaborationist” posture. The “pacifist” and “revolutionary defeatist” elements in both the CGT and SFIO collaborated in the creation of the Centre Syndical d'Action Contre la Guerre (CSACG) in the spring of 1938, just prior to the SFIO's Royan congress. (See the announcement of a “national information assembly” to fight the growing “war psychosis” in Juin 36, No 10 (27 May 1938), p. 6.) By the end of 1938 this Centre was openly supporting the Faurist forces within the SFIO in Syndicats, 28 December 1938 and 11 January 1939. Henry Ehrmann, French Labor, From Popular Front to Liberation (New York, 1947), p. 304, notes 2 and 10, speculates about contacts between various groups of “pacifists” and “defeatists” and specifically mentions an accord between Paul Faure and Pierre Laval, but provides no evidence for these remarks.

⁶⁵ Prost, La C.G.T., p. 156.

⁶⁹ “Les Amicales de la Métallurgie Aviation, Assemblée d'Information”, 11 February 1940

⁶⁹ The article by Jean-Pierre Rioux, “Les socialistes dans l'entreprise au temps du Front populaire: quelques remarques sur les Amicales socialistes (1936–1939)”, in: Le Mouvement Social, No 106 (1979), pp. 3–24, appeared after this piece was committed to the press.