The question of who betrayed Jean Moulin has attracted a great deal of research, speculation, judicial scrutiny and media coverage. Many members of the
French Resistance who could have provided a first-hand account of what happened died during the War. Furthermore, internecine tensions within the Resistance movement are well documented and have left fertile ground for speculation about who within the movement might have provided the information to the Nazis. Regarding Moulin's arrest, suspicions have focused on Resistance member
René Hardy, who, prior to accusations that he betrayed Moulin, was known to be a reliable Resistance fighter. Hardy was arrested on 7 June 1943 by the Sicherheitsdienst on the Paris-Lyon night train. This arrest took place in the context of a wave of arrests of resistance fighters, including Resistance leader General
Charles Delestraint. After his arrest, Hardy was subjected to torture or threats of torture. It is suspected, and some Nazi documentation supports this, that he became a Nazi agent after his arrest. In any case, at the insistence of many of his colleagues in the Resistance, Hardy was present at the house in
Caluire-et-Cuire at the time of Moulin's arrest. At the trial of
Klaus Barbie in 1987, his lawyer,
Jacques Vergès, made much out of speculation that Moulin was betrayed by either Communists and/or Gaullists as part of an attempt to distract attention away from the actions of his client, by making the true authors of Moulin's arrest his fellow
résistants, rather than Barbie. Vergès failed in his effort to acquit Barbie but succeeded in creating a vast industry of various conspiracy theories, many very fanciful, about who betrayed Moulin. Leading historians, such as Henri Noguères and
Jean-Pierre Azéma, rejected Vergès's conspiracy theories under which Barbie was somehow less culpable than the supposed traitors who tipped him off. Clinton wrote that Wright based his allegations against Moulin entirely on secret documents that he claimed to have seen but which no historian has ever seen, and on conversations that he is supposed to have had decades ago with others long dead, which made his case against Moulin very "dubious". Taking up Giraud's theories, the lawyer Charles Benfredj argued in his 1990 book ''L'Affaire Jean Moulin: Le contre-enquête'' that Moulin was a Soviet agent who had not been killed by Barbie but allowed by the German government to go to the
Soviet Union in 1943, where Moulin supposedly died sometime after the war. Benfredj's book was published with an introduction with
Jacques Soustelle, the archaeologist of
Mexico and wartime Gaullist whose commitment to
Algérie française had made him a bitter enemy of de Gaulle by 1959. of
Metz. It has also been suggested, principally in Marnham's biography, that Moulin was betrayed by communists. Marnham points the finger specifically at
Raymond Aubrac and possibly his wife, Lucie. He alleges that communists at times betrayed non-communists to the Gestapo and that Aubrac was linked to harsh actions during the purge of collaborators after the war. In 1990, Barbie, by then "a bitter dying
Nazi", named Aubrac as the traitor. To counteract the accusations levelled at Moulin,
Daniel Cordier, his personal secretary during the war, wrote a biography of his former leader. In April 1997, Vergès produced a "Barbie Testament", which he claimed that Barbie had given him ten years earlier and purported to show the Aubracs had tipped off Barbie. It was timed for the publication of the book
Aubrac Lyon 1943 by Gérard Chauvy, who meant to prove that the Aubracs were the ones who informed Barbie about the fateful meeting at Caluire on 21 June 1943. In 1998, the French historian Jacques Baynac, in his book ''Les Secrets de l'affaire Jean Moulin'', claimed that Moulin was planning to break with de Gaulle to recognise General Giraud, which led the Gaullists to tip off Barbie before that could happen. ==Legacy==