Sleeping with the Enemy: Coco Chanel’s Secret
War
By Hal
Vaughan
(Knopf, 279 pages,
$27.95)
Born into abject poverty and raised in an orphanage, she had a
life-long love and hate relationship with a fabulously rich and
creative Jewish businessman, but she was a viciously mean
anti-Semite of the old school, bigoted and scornful and hateful
like the nuns who raised her during the 1890s when anti-Semitism
was common in France. You can say that is not as bad as the new
school, the exterminationists who, beginning in Germany and
continuing to this day in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries,
make the leap from irrational personal hate to rational
state-sponsored mass murder. It is still pretty bad.
She had a 20-year affair with an Abwehr officer (German military
intelligence) who played sports, favored seaside resorts, and
cynically used his own friends, including her. You can argue
sleeping with a German was not the worst a girl could do: there
were more than 50 million of them in those nightmare years and they
were not all creeps. That argument, though, does not get you very
far in the case of a fellow who was not only a handsome playboy
rascal but also a moonlighter for the Gestapo who insisted she do a
little moonlighting of her own for his bosses—the ones in long
black leather coats and polished boots and über-führer prefixed to their ranks.
Where affairs were concerned, she had no inhibitions whatever,
the only question in her mind being what she got in return, and
here she was discriminating, partial to men who were in positions
to help her business, which was to make women look like something
they were not. To the Jew Pierre Wertheimer, the German Hans
Günther von Dincklage, and the French men of power and influence
whom she needed in the worlds of theater, fashion, journalism, and
politics, she added a Russian grandee with a big wallet and an
English royal with an even bigger one, the Duke of Westminster
himself. He was one of the very top toffs in the innermost circle
of the British Empire, a man too big to fail, as we would say
today, too blue-blooded for even Winston Churchill to turn against
him, despite near-treasonous activity during the war when—like the
Duke of Windsor and the social-climbing seductress who led him
astray—he went beyond appeasement (an arguable if misguided policy
until ’39) into overt support of the Third Reich and its mad and
evil leaders.
She, of course, is Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel, the most influential
designer of women’s fashion in history and creator of the most
famous perfume in the world. “Coco” was invented in the pre-Great
War years when, put to work as a seamstress by the sisters who had
raised her, she supplemented her income by working nights in bars
as a singer and perhaps more (in French “cocotte” = call girl). She
had big plans, though, and she realized them. Today, if a woman is
not wearing a Chanel outfit, she is wearing one, most experts in
this field agree, that could not have been made and sold but for
the revolution in dress and scent that Coco led. The revolution’s
watchwords were simplicity, comfort, elegance, and to form a quick
idea of what this means, compare in your mind’s eye Queen Victoria
and Jackie Kennedy. Today, a bottle of No. 5 perfume, which Marilyn
Monroe said was the only thing she wore in bed, is sold somewhere
in the world every 30 seconds.
HAL VAUGHAN, a retired U.S. foreign service officer living in
Paris, France, is not a fashion writer, but rather a keen student
of the World War II years. Following a gripping biography of Sumner
Jackson, an expatriate American doctor who, with his French wife,
joined the French Resistance, and a study of the American foreign
service officers who prepared the invasion of North Africa in 1942,
he turned his attention to the civil war the French lived through
even as they were at war with the Italo-German coalition that had
invaded and occupied their country in 1940. This is a big and
inexhaustible historical issue, like the American Civil War.
The lead character in Vaughan’s book, as he first conceived it,
was the kind of American who, had there been a movie, would be
played by Jimmy Stewart. Handsome and low-key, intellectually
brilliant but unpretentious, handy with tools and weapons, a quick
study who could be dropped deep behind enemy lines and outwit
Gestapo thugs, Gregory Thomas was a New York-born law graduate
educated in Switzerland, France, and Spain as well as America. In
the mid-’30s he went to work for Pierre Wertheimer, the businessman
who transformed the successful but essentially niche couture and perfume boutique that Coco’s
first English lover (the one before the duke, though who knows how
many others there were) had backed into the House of Chanel, icon
of French business creativity, which roared through the booming
’20s and coasted through the depressed ’30s as an, indeed as
the, industry leader, defining the
female look and scent for the rest of the century.
Wertheimer was born in 1888 to an Alsatian Jewish family that
chose France over Germany after the Franco-Prussian War gave
France’s Rhineland provinces to the First Reich in 1871. Pierre was
a visionary entrepreneur, one of the first to see the opportunities
in big stores (he was a founder of the Galleries Lafayette) and in
world-famous brand names. Since, additional to recognizing Coco’s
genius, he happened to be in love with her, he made a deal that
turned over the manufacture and marketing of No. 5 to a new
company, House of Chanel, which he controlled, on terms extremely
generous to her.
It was Thomas rather than Wertheimer to whom Vaughan was
initially drawn, however, because of his deep interest in the World
War II period and the military and intelligence worlds that
fascinate him due to his own experiences. Thomas, with his savvy
and his Continental education, was sent by Wertheimer to retrieve
the secret ingredients for No. 5, available only in Grasse, a town
on the French Riviera known as the perfume capital of the world due
to the quality of its horticulture, notably, in the case of No. 5,
its jasmine. (To this day, the formula for No. 5 is known only to a
handful of individuals in the company and Al Gore, who invented
perfume to counter the stench of global pollution.)
Thomas’s adventures, and his later service in the OSS, seemed to
Vaughan a natural sequel to his book on the legendary Sumner
Jackson. However, his research turned up long-suppressed evidence
of Chanel’s recruitment as an Abwehr agent by her lover Dincklage.
While it was not a secret that Coco, like quite a few others in
France, had been a “horizontal collaborator,” her active and
deliberate contribution to the German side was known only to narrow
overlapping circles of friends, family, and associates among French
and German survivors of the war. “Spatz” Dincklage, a teenage
cavalry officer during World War I, went to great length to cover
up his own service in the intelligence and secret police services
of the Third Reich. Vaughan found previously unpublished
documentary evidence of the chain of command leading up to Himmler,
the head of the Nazi secret police, in which Dincklage
operated.
THE DINCKLAGE-CHANEL RING, such as it was, failed completely.
The idea was that Coco’s connections to the Duke of Westminster
might facilitate negotiations leading to a separate peace in the
West. Vaughan’s thorough research and his subtle understanding of
the psychological and political atmosphere in France in ’43 and ’44
show that the scheme was by no means insane, but on the contrary
reflected a certain point of view on what was at stake in the war
and how it might end. It was quite possible in the France of those
years, despite or perhaps because of the oppressive Occupation,
with its massive deportations of Jews (and others “recruited” for
forced labor), with the absent POWs a source of strain and fear,
with the ruthless Wehrmacht and Gestapo repression of the several
ill-equipped resistance movements, with sketchy and distorted news
of the war’s progress, to believe in a long stalemate on the
Western front. It was possible to conclude from this that life just
had to go on with some form of French-German collaboration. To be
sure, it was also possible to conclude that life was not possible
under such conditions; this was the point of view adopted, for
example, by Pierre Reverdy, one of the great poets of that era and
a Resistance leader, who had been intimate with Coco in the ’20s
and stayed in love with her all his life.
Chanel’s own point of view was that of a crafty, extremely
narrow-minded peasant woman, interested only in who would end up
with the farm when the shooting stopped. The extraordinary thing,
however, was that she was also the Jazz Age sophisticate who was on
intimate terms with Westminster and friendly ones with Churchill,
whose personal lawyer was the son-in-law of the Vichy leader Pierre
Laval and whose bed and soul mate (for the time being) was a
ranking Nazi spy, even as she stayed in touch with the poet who
loved her and who, in a perfect illustration of the adage that love
is blind, basically saved her ass in the wild days of the
Liberation in the summer of ’44 when his men were prepared to kill
her.
Chanel used the “Aryanization” laws to try to steal Wertheimer’s
majority stake in the company. The Thomas mission was meant to
allow Wertheimer to manufacture No. 5 in New Jersey (he had fled
France ahead of the German invasion). As it happens, the French
Catholic Wertheimer associate who under a legal subterfuge was
watching over the House’s interests during Wertheimer’s exile in
New York was able to stall (he challenged Wertheimer over ownership
after the war and lost, but though shabby it was not the brazen
larceny Coco attempted).
Following the war Coco was briefly detained as a suspected
collaborator, but the magistrate declined to press charges. Others
who had consorted with the occupiers were punished, many were not;
Chanel used money and influence to ensure that the few who knew of
her Abwehr activities and might spill the beans when put on trial
kept their mouths shut. Vaughan suggests Churchill, busy as he was,
may have sent the word along to discourage prosecution, as he did
not see the point of dragging out the dirty Westminster-Windsor
laundry.
PRUDENTLY, Chanel left France for a comfortable Swiss exile with
Dincklage. After a few years, Wertheimer suggested a re-launch of
the House of Chanel’s fashion business, which had ceased operations
during the war. Aging but ever restless and brimming with new
fashion ideas, Chanel accepted his terms (which once again were
very generous to her), and she was back in business, creating the
famous tailleurs (skirt and
jacket outfits) that characterized women’s clothes in the ’50s and
’60s the way the “little black dresses” and other “simple”
innovations had marked the ’20s.
ggoblue| 1.16.12 @ 6:57AM
thank you for the very interesting read. the french post war 'civil war' is indeed a bottomless pit of intrigue.
LindaF | 1.16.12 @ 7:31AM
I'm torn - yes, she was a weasely little collaborator, but, what of that? She was also French, and MANY of them did the same, or worse.
She came out of that polluted cesspool - do we expect that she would be pure?
Alice Moore| 1.16.12 @ 9:37AM
LindaF there is no need for Francophobia. In the Nazi/Soviet eras collaboration was the order of the day in much of Europe.
Before you condemn ask yourself what you would do if the US were in a similar situation. It's easy to talk a big game without a gazillion man, foreign, brutal army in your country 24/7. I'm reminded of of a co worker always saying how the American people would have given a Stalin or a Hitler the what for before they could go beyond dog catcher. And, oh yes, they'd be in the Underground Resistance should the Red Army march in. This coming from a person who butt kissed a tin horn shift supervisor. Imagine how this person would treat their neighborhood Block Commandant who could wreak much more havoc on a life than having ONLY a say in termination of employment.
Collaboration is not unique to any nationality. I am not providing any cover or rationalization. The average person is in a triage situation between worse and absolutely worst of all without knowing one from the other.
Richard Baker| 1.16.12 @ 8:02AM
Wonder if she had HER head shaved as a collaborator at the end of WWII? Probably not, I suppose.
Stuart Koehl| 1.16.12 @ 9:09AM
Abwehr was military intelligence, part of the Wehrmacht, and did not answer to Heinrich Himmler, who was Reichsfuhrer der SS, with control over the SS, Gestapo and Sicherheitsdienst. So, in no way could Dinklage have been part "of the chain of command leading up to Himmler, the head of the Nazi secret police, in which Dincklage operated". In fact, the Abwehr and SS were mortal enemies, and, as the war ground on to its conclusion, a great many Abwehr officers ended up either in front of an SS firing squad, or dangling from a meathook (like Abwehr commander Admiral Wilhelm Canaris). During the war, Canaris and a number of Abwehr officers covertly passed on intelligence to the Allies, as part of a concerted effort to bring down Hitler.
Such an elementary error puts into doubt much of the remainder of Vaughn's narrative.
Hal Vaugan| 1.17.12 @ 6:23AM
Mr.Koehl--Read the book and (bit more history, too); see the reproduced documents that prove Dincklage worked fro the Abewehr AND THE GESTAPO--in fact by 1940-1941 Canaris ordered all Abwehr agents to cooperate with the Gestapo!
Hal W. Vaughan
Occam's Tool| 1.17.12 @ 11:11AM
Thanks, Mr. Vaughn.
In the words of the MST3K guys (Agent for HARM): a traitorous Frenchman! Who would've thought it?
Chef Schnauzer| 1.16.12 @ 9:55AM
I hope the book is as well written as the review. Thank you.
Alain| 1.16.12 @ 12:20PM
A very interesting review, Mr. Kaplan, and full of things I hadn't read elsewhere.
However, was it necessary to say "saved her ass"? If you meant "saved her life," why not say so and avoid the lowest-common-denominator vulgarity?
Jan| 1.16.12 @ 12:53PM
I think Kaplan's comment of "saved her ass" is completely appropriate. After all, Coco's ass really got around.
Seek| 1.16.12 @ 1:13PM
The devil wore Prada.
Frog in Fatigues| 1.16.12 @ 5:25PM
Right on, Monsieur Jan! This is an unexpected and tasteless speck of dirt in an otherwise quite interesting article. However, I don't like the uncalled for jab at catholic nuns and their supposed but unproven antisemitism. Who were the many "Justes" who saved jewish asses (see the unpleasant effect? in those days? commies? freemasons? protestants? government employees? Nope. Most of them were either very plain and very humble catholics or priests, friars and nuns. Unless, of course, you buy the very tired canard of a collaborationist church.
Frog in Fatigues| 1.16.12 @ 5:28PM
Damn it. What's wrong with my eyesight? read:(see the unpleasant effect?)
Kingofthenet| 1.16.12 @ 6:16PM
Well she may have been devious, ruthless really ...but she had more class/taste in her little finger than ANY women alive today.
Kingofthenet| 1.16.12 @ 6:50PM
I heard #5 is made from the tears of Jewish Children?
Occam's Tool| 1.17.12 @ 11:12AM
King:
Screw off, jihadist lover.
Ironman| 1.16.12 @ 7:04PM
There are a number of slippages here that mar a column of sensible readers' letters.
Regarding the most silly -- or noxious --, let us be clear right off: Mr. K. is only stating the facts, as reported by the book's author (whom he makes clear is a diligent researcher), so there is no cause to impute one bigotry or another to either reviewer or author. On the contrary, if bigotry there is it may be in the myopic eyes of the beholders. The Catholic Church in 1880-90s France was as fallible as its Lord, I am sure, anticipated. And it takes nothing from the heroism of Christians in later years, notably during the terrible years of World War II -- when they were among the foremost fighters in the Resistances and witnesses against Nazi pagan barbarism, as they were elsewhere in Europe --, to point out the obvious, which is that certain orders and their works were rife with the same awful prejudices that poisoned other sectors of society.
Hey Jew| 1.16.12 @ 7:29PM
Like Eric Cantor (current Majority Whip), the Jew Wertheimer, stabbed his race in the back....for profits.
Isn't that what the 1st Jewish House Majority Whip in the GOP is doing to John Boehner?
Why blame Coco or Boehner and not the Jewish traitors?
Frog in Fatigues| 1.19.12 @ 7:43AM
To "Hey Jew": You stink.
POST American| 1.16.12 @ 9:06PM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
"By 2000, EUGENICS had shaken
off most of its NAZI baggage--"
-Endgame
(documentary online)
-Only to take up its POST Soviet
and RED Chinese.
Chanel's complicity, whatever the degree,
is NOTHING to the sellout, cover and
TREASON underway right now, in broad
daylight viz a viz Globalism, RED China,
world CON-troll and genocidal stealth
------------------EUGENICS------------------.
Remember kiddies, one and all in the 30's
and even 40's could claim some degree
of genuine ignorance.
WE CANNOT.
You reading this -KNOW-- what's going on
and are doing NOTHING ----that is if you
yourself are not an actual enabler of it.
SINS of omission are insidious.
But the SIN AGAINST KNOWLEDGE, as
you will one day find, has a special place
in hell.
-------------YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED-------------
Otto von Bismarck| 1.16.12 @ 11:51PM
"after the Franco-Prussian War gave France’s Rhineland provinces to the First Reich in 1871"
No. That was the second one. And the provinces were part of Alsace and Lorraine. The Rhineland is further north.
Stefan Stackhouse| 1.17.12 @ 11:35AM
You beat me to it. The first reich was the Holy Roman Empire. (Which, as Voltaire famously said, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.)
R Kaplan| 1.17.12 @ 6:59PM
Gentlemen: Thank you, I stand corrected. (And may I add, the "first Reich" and "Rhineland" mistakes are the review's, not the book's.)
Andnier| 1.17.12 @ 1:23AM
Video Converter Ultimate,
dvd to avi converter,
video converter ultimate| 1.17.12 @ 2:01AM
Record Streaming Video,
YouTube Downloader for Mac,