Eric Voegelin, Review of The Enigma of Admiral Darlan (1943)

Eric Voegelin’s book review assesses Alec de Montmorency’s account of Admiral Darlan through its apparent access to privileged information, its uncertain evidentiary standing, and its limited literary achievement. The central distinction is between a plausible portrait of Darlan’s motives and a judgment of his collaborationist policy that the available evidence cannot yet support.

Voegelin begins by identifying the author’s likely position. Internal evidence suggests that “Alec de Montmorency” is the pseudonym of a naval officer or French Ministry of Marine official who was close to Darlan during France’s breakdown. Some information appears obtainable only from the admiral himself. After briefly surveying Darlan’s background and career, the book concentrates on events since 1939. Proximity to its subject gives the account potential value, but does not establish its reliability:

The factual details, as far as they can be checked, are presented vaguely but on the whole correctly; as far as they concern such matters as the Darlan-Pétain-Weygand plot for a military dictatorship, or the events behind closed doors at the conference of Bordeaux between English and French representatives before the surrender of France, etc., their correctness can be confirmed only in a distant future when other reliable materials are available.

The review thus distinguishes checkable details from disclosures requiring future corroboration. Within that reservation, Voegelin finds the interpretation plausible. Montmorency connects Darlan’s conduct with the French navy’s royalist tradition, the idea of a Spanish-French dynastic union, wounded national pride and personal honor, and French resentment of British behavior. Allied treatment of Norway figures as a warning against comparable exploitation of France. These considerations make Darlan’s actions intelligible without settling their political wisdom.

It is regrettable that the author is a weak writer; with the materials in his possession, the tragic fate of Darlan could have been presented much more impressively.

Voegelin’s literary criticism acknowledges the material’s tragic potential. His closing political judgment is similarly discriminating: defending Darlan’s patriotism is unnecessary, since contempt for dubious figures of the Third Republic does not itself establish treason. Whether collaboration was wise remains unresolved. The review’s relevance lies in this separation of patriotic motive, narrative plausibility, documentary verification, and political judgment under conditions of incomplete wartime knowledge.