I don't say spy noirs trigger noir. I say that it's the historical context of WWII (which starts before Pearl Harbor) that, if you will, triggers noir. And because of this historical context, it's appropriate that spy noirs precede crime noirs in the UK and the US in the early years of film noir in those two countries.
Consequently, I don't care about German or French films -- they don't pertain to what concerns me.
You cannot produce any evidence that I've railed against the femme fatale. My criticism, going back to the war noir essay I wrote in 1987 and published years later in Film Noir Reader 4, is aimed at those who've only focused on this female character in noir and ignored the woman in distress.
For example, I emphasized that criticism against your interpretation of Repeat Performance so long ago. At that time, your noir-o-meter, shamefully from my viewpoint, but predictably given your creation's exemplary representation of the hardboiled paradigm, didn't even have an entry for the woman in distress!
My website carefully shows that the term has to be woman in distress because the dictionary links both psychological plight as well as physical plight with distress. Your use of peril, similar with Eddie's use of jeopardy, cannot be accurately used because each of these words, according to the dictionary, only pertains to physical plight.
My website not only has detailed pages based on my own invention of terms (soft and hard) for the femme fatale in film noir, I uniquely periodize the femme fatale in spy noirs vs. crime noirs, and I uniquely demonstrate that the femme fatale is, before becoming a post-war "slacker" in crime noir, she was a job-holder in spy noir. If my table shows that there are more film noirs with a woman in distress than a femme fatale, that isn't evidence of my railing against the femme fatale, it's clearly to substantiate my contention of the significance of the woman in distress.
I have no concern with such concepts at character disintegration, or alienation or corruption -- since my only concerns are to show the significance of the historical context for the emergence of film noirs in the UK and US being spy noirs rather than crime noirs; the extent of the filmography of spy noirs in the UK and US; and how spy noirs provide more evidence that film noir neither derives from hardboiled literature nor from emigres directors and cinematographers.
i don't have "antipathy to the hardboiled aspects of noir"; I have opposed, now for 32 years, the framing of film noir in terms of a "hardboiled paradigm." For example, I carried out that opposition, at length, via my critique of your noir-o-meter assessment of Repeat Performance. My home page doesn't give evidence of my antipathy to hardboiled aspects of noir. Instead, in example after example, I indicate how the "tenets" that can be associated with the hardboiled paradigm inaccurately represent actual film noir. That is, for each tenet that I cite, I then claim that I "challenge" it on my website because that tenet is "incorrect."
Regarding our different tracks/methodologies, I can't imagine what can justify your reference to my devising an alternative "creation myth," when the basis of my contention about the significance of spy noirs for the origins of film noir in the UK and US derives from the historical context in which spy noirs (plus so many other non-noir spy films) were released in those two countries during the WWII "era," mid-1930s to shortly after the end of WWII. Spy noirs are not triggered by anything you assert; they are triggered by what I emphasize -- both in lengthy text and scholarly footnotes -- and what you ignore.