Life at the Ritz During Occupation

When German forces entered Paris on June 14, 1940, Coco Chanel made a decision that would forever taint her legacy: she remained in the city and took up residence at the Hôtel Ritz. This choice, and the subsequent decisions she made during the occupation, represent the most controversial and morally complex period of her life. Understanding these years requires careful examination of documented facts while acknowledging the gaps and contradictions in the historical record.

The Ritz during the occupation became a microcosm of collaboration and compromise. The hotel was requisitioned by the German military, with one side reserved for Nazi officials and the other maintaining a facade of normal luxury hotel operations. Chanel had maintained a suite at the Ritz since the 1920s, and she continued to occupy it throughout the war. This arrangement placed her in daily proximity to the occupying forces, a situation that went beyond mere coexistence.

Life at the Ritz provided Chanel with privileges unavailable to most Parisians. While the general population faced severe shortages of food, fuel, and basic necessities, Ritz residents enjoyed relative comfort. The hotel's restaurants continued to serve multi-course meals, heat flowed through the radiators, and hot water remained available. These material advantages came at a moral cost that Chanel seemed willing to pay.

The social atmosphere at the Ritz was one of forced conviviality between occupiers and certain members of the French elite who chose accommodation over resistance. Chanel participated in this social life, dining with German officials, attending parties, and maintaining the pretense of normalcy. Witnesses from this period describe her as charming and animated at these gatherings, showing no obvious discomfort with her dining companions.

Her daily routine during the occupation followed familiar patterns. She would descend from her suite impeccably dressed, conduct what business remained—primarily related to her perfume sales—and participate in the hotel's social life. The boutique at rue Cambon remained closed, as she had shuttered it in 1939, but she maintained the apartment above it and occasionally received visitors there. This continuation of pre-war habits amid the drastically changed circumstances of occupation reveals either remarkable adaptation or troubling indifference.