Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 140

Thread: Were Vichy French leaders traitors?

  1. #41
    Lord Claremorris's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, United States of America
    Posts
    1,168

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Londinium View Post
    In addition to those already mentioned: Fernand de Brinon, Secretary of State for Vichy

    All of those you mentioned were hostile to parliamentary democracy, they wanted a return to 'traditional' French values of the family and the nation, Petain with the support of others instituted himself as an all powerful dictator on the model of the other Fascist dictators, Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité was replaced with Travail, Famille, Patrie, the life of the countryside was emphasised not that of urban decadent lifestyles, the school curriculum was replaced by one with a high emphasis on physical prowess, they sent young French men to work in German factories, women were encouraged to stay at home, abortion made illegal, divorce made much harder, a woman was even guillotined for perfoming abortions. Do these policies sound far right/fascistic to you? because they bear a striking resemblence to those practised in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and they all came from the men you mentioned.
    That doesn't make them Nazis. Makes them conservative, considering how most of them were soldiers or sailors that's hardly surprising. Military men are generally like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Londinium View Post
    As for the persecution of the Jews, just because every country did it doesn't make it any more moral or acceptable. Should the British people have rampaged through London's Jewish areas because the rest of Europe was persecuting the Jews? No, because they knew what was right and wrong. Actively taking part in the genocide of a group of people simply to retain some power is a not a morally acceptable action.
    Yeah except the British didn't have the Gestapo in London rounding up Jews. If France had not been defeated and still held the line, no Jews would have been rounded up. As it were the French nation was entirely at the mercy of the Germans, unlike the British. Don't compare apples and oranges.



    Quote Originally Posted by Londinium View Post
    Open Jewish persecution such as helping in the rounding up of Jews, publically barring Jewish people from public offices. Interning Roma, homosexuals, Communists etc in concentration camps. Elections were prohibited, Unions were forcibly broken apart, the regime's rather haphazard policies on it's colonies and whether they would eventually end up under French or German control, Vichy sent 750,000 men to work in Germany etc etc. Germany only didn't get the French fleet because the British made damned sure they wouldn't.

    As for suggesting there would be a large scale British Quisling state had the Germans invaded, I find that hard to believe, given the British people's traditional approach toward foreign invasions.
    Traditional approach towards foreign invasions? When was the last foreign invasion? 1066? What approach did the British take then? If the Germans landed and forcibly occupied the whole island, you think somehow the Government would be anti-Nazi? Preposterous. The British don't have some innate superiority in defying invaders, sorry.

    Again, they had the Germans but miles away, and they were all military men. Vichy did not kill people in the way Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union did.

    What? Laborde scuttled the main units of the French Fleet at Toulon, this was beyond the reach of the British and if the Germans seized it the British could have done nothing to stop them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttli...leet_in_Toulon The French sunk their own ships to prevent them from falling into German hands. "The combat groups entered Toulon at 04:00 on 27 November 1942 and made for the harbour, meeting only weak and sporadic resistance. At 04:30 the Germans entered Fort Lamalgue and arrested Marquis, but failed to prevent his chief of staff, Contre-Amiral Robin, from calling the chief of the arsenal, Contre-Admiral Dornon. The attack came as a complete surprise to the Vichy officers, but Dornon transmitted the order to scuttle the fleet to Admiral Laborde aboard the flagship Strasbourg. Laborde was taken aback by the German operation, but transmitted orders to prepare for scuttling, and to fire on any unauthorised personnel approaching the ships."

    In other words, sink themselves and if the Germans tried to stop them, then shoot the Germans. This had nothing to do with the British.


    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Maybe not in the short run, The Honor of France would be higher, and the fact is had the war dragged on you cannot really argue Vichy cared as soon as Hitler cared to say jump Vichy would have jumped.

    About North Africa I cannot find my more detailed source an article on Rommel's logistics, but see this article from back in the day:

    French North Africa since June 1940: Main Political Developments
    C. M. C.
    Vol. 19, No. 25 (Dec. 12, 1942), pp. 1125-1131


    Rommel was receiving trucks and food from French Algeria. (pg1129)

    Fair enough, but that's not military equipment and it doesn't specify if it was purchased from independent contractors or given to the Germans by the French authorities.
    "Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."

  2. #42
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Fair enough, but that's not military equipment and it doesn't specify if it was purchased from independent contractors or given to the Germans by the French authorities.
    It is hard to find a more desperately needed military supply for Rommel than trucks. Again as I said I still rounding up sources but I am fairly sure The local Vichy leaders requisitioned and delivered to Germany a large endowment of Trucks.
    Last edited by conon394; April 26, 2011 at 06:39 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  3. #43

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Claremorris View Post
    x
    I never said they were Nazis, I said they were Fascists. Different thing. I also wasn't referring to Toulon but instead to Mers-El-Kebir which happened before Toulon and probably gave the sailors there the incentive to scuttle their fleet.
    Last edited by Londinium; April 26, 2011 at 06:20 PM.

  4. #44
    Lord Claremorris's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, United States of America
    Posts
    1,168

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Londinium View Post
    I never said they were Nazis, I said they were Fascists. Different thing. I also wasn't referring to Toulon but instead to Mers-El-Kebir which happened before Toulon and probably gave the sailors there the incentive to scuttle their fleet.
    There's a fine line between fascists and reactionaries. France was riddled with monarchists. Being on the right doesn't necessarily mean you're a fascist. It's always hard to gauge with Laval though, outwardly he said that he wished Germany would win the war, and probably many men on the right wished the Soviet Union would be defeated, but his true thoughts are hard to pinpoint. He's a weasel and and a slippery snake. He may well have meant it, or he may not have.

    As it were, before France surrendered to Germany, Churchill wrung a promise from Darlan that the French Fleet would never fall into German hands. Darlan promised that he would scuttle the Fleet before the Germans got it. Churchill didn't trust him, and therefore launched Operation "Catapult." But as Churchill himself wrote in his WWII volumes, the French kept their word. The French Navy was an old and distinguished service, the sailors lived by their own code of honour and it's hardly to be expected of them that they'd meekly turn their Fleet over to the British or the Germans. They were French, and at Mers El Kebir Gensoul re-iterated Darlan's promise that the French would scuttle their ships before they fell into German hands, but refused to sail to Britain or the United States. This is why they were fired upon. In case you didn't notice, the German Fleet did the same thing in WWI, the civilian authorities turned the ships over to the British, who promptly sailed to Scapa Flow. Once the sailors found out that the ships were to be distributed like prizes to the Allies they kept their honour and sank them. I doubt the Royal Navy would be very keen on giving their ships up to anybody, why would you imagine the French Navy to be any different?

    EDIT: This is Admiral Gensoul's reply to Admiral Somerville's ultimatum at Oran:

    "1. The French Fleet cannot do otherwise than apply the clauses of the Armistice - on account of the consequences that would be borne by Metropolitan France. 2. Formal orders have been received, and these orders have been sent to all commanding officers, so that, if after the Armistice, there is a risk of the ships falling into enemy hands, they would be scuttled. 3. These orders will be carried out."

    This was before the British even fired on them at Mers El Kebir.
    Last edited by Lord Claremorris; April 26, 2011 at 06:45 PM.
    "Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."

  5. #45

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Claremorris View Post
    There's a fine line between fascists and reactionaries. France was riddled with monarchists. Being on the right doesn't necessarily mean you're a fascist. It's always hard to gauge with Laval though, outwardly he said that he wished Germany would win the war, and probably many men on the right wished the Soviet Union would be defeated, but his true thoughts are hard to pinpoint. He's a weasel and and a slippery snake. He may well have meant it, or he may not have.

    As it were, before France surrendered to Germany, Churchill wrung a promise from Darlan that the French Fleet would never fall into German hands. Darlan promised that he would scuttle the Fleet before the Germans got it. Churchill didn't trust him, and therefore launched Operation "Catapult." But as Churchill himself wrote in his WWII volumes, the French kept their word. The French Navy was an old and distinguished service, the sailors lived by their own code of honour and it's hardly to be expected of them that they'd meekly turn their Fleet over to the British or the Germans. They were French, and at Mers El Kebir Gensoul re-iterated Darlan's promise that the French would scuttle their ships before they fell into German hands, but refused to sail to Britain or the United States. This is why they were fired upon. In case you didn't notice, the German Fleet did the same thing in WWI, the civilian authorities turned the ships over to the British, who promptly sailed to Scapa Flow. Once the sailors found out that the ships were to be distributed like prizes to the Allies they kept their honour and sank them. I doubt the Royal Navy would be very keen on giving their ships up to anybody, why would you imagine the French Navy to be any different?
    You have a point but if the French Navy had such honour I would have expected them to rebase in Alexandria, Portsmouth or Plymouth and fought as part of De Gaulle's Free French forces rather than forming an integral part of the collaborationist regime in Vichy. Alas they didn't do that and thus there was always going to be a suspicion about the true nature of their allegiance and also a fear that if Vichy was toppled the French Navy would be served up to the Germans on a platter.

  6. #46
    Lord Claremorris's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, United States of America
    Posts
    1,168

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Londinium View Post
    You have a point but if the French Navy had such honour I would have expected them to rebase in Alexandria, Portsmouth or Plymouth and fought as part of De Gaulle's Free French forces rather than forming an integral part of the collaborationist regime in Vichy. Alas they didn't do that and thus there was always going to be a suspicion about the true nature of their allegiance and also a fear that if Vichy was toppled the French Navy would be served up to the Germans on a platter.
    What you're failing to understand here is that the Navy, and the Empire, were Vichy's only cards. They guaranteed Vichy's continued independent existence. If the Germans broke the Armistice, the French Fleet and the French Empire would defect to the Allies, while Germany gained nothing, since Vichy already collaborated with it. Besides, the Admiral of the Fleet was Francois Darlan, and he was part of the Vichy Government. The French Navy was intensely loyal to him, since he built it up between the wars. He gave orders and they were followed by the officers. The French ships in Alexandria and in the British ports were not allowed to fight for Free France. Admiral Godfroy, surrounded in Alexandria, refused just as Gensoul did, and his fleet was practically interned for the whole war. In his case however, it was agreed between him and Admiral Cunningham that the French would maintain skeleton crews on their warships (not enough to fight with, but enough to keep the ships French) and the rest of the sailors would be repatriated to France. In the British ports, Royal Marines simply boarded the French ships and seized them. So Gensoul's fate would have been the same. He had no intention of having his ships confiscated or imprisoned by the British. So the French Navy wasn't even allowed to declare of de Gaulle, its ships were too valuable to be jeopardised, the British were taking no chances.
    "Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."

  7. #47
    MathiasOfAthens's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sverige
    Posts
    22,877

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Claremorris View Post
    What? The Germans got no base in Africa from the French. How would Union with Britain save France? The BEF had already quit the continent and was back in Britain, the French Army was shattered.

    Furthermore, the Italians had Libya, so the Germans could enter Africa through them, which is in fact what they did.
    Very simply. The Axis were not ready to carry on the fight into Egypt after Britain... it take another year at least to get going.

    France Proper was lost. Reynaud knew that. But Africa was not and the Royal Navy and French navy were strong enough to repel any Italian ships and eventually destroy the Italian Navy. The BEF could have reorganized in Britain and then traveled to Africa, landed in Algeria or Tunisia and Continue the fight from there by invading Libya. From there plans would be made for invading Italy.

    If we consider the course of the war much of the fighting between Britain and Germany took place in Africa prior to the US entrance in the War. If Africa can be secured early on then the Axis would have had no way of invading without a proper navy.

    Either invading Libya would have dragged on with a war on both sides with German Reinforcements or a second front would have opened in Turkey and Greece. If Hitler couldnt get to the Oil from Libya maybe he go for the ME.

  8. #48
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    If Hitler couldnt get to the Oil from Libya
    Undiscovered and at the time and body was looking/suspected it was there.
    Last edited by conon394; April 27, 2011 at 10:17 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  9. #49
    MathiasOfAthens's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sverige
    Posts
    22,877

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Cool didnt know that. Did he just want to capture Egypt so he could get to the ME Oil from North Africa?

  10. #50

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Claremorris View Post
    EDIT: Blast it all. I just realised I typed "where" instead of "were." Don't I feel foolish?
    You can edit the title by double clicking it in VV main page.

    To OP, I have an alternative view : were Bonn and East Berlin governements traitors as they were obedient to the West respectively East blocks, instead of pursuing a nationalist German policy.

    Of course, the comparaison is a little bit streched.

    Vichy was a solution for France, the best compromise given the conditions - remember, there was no hope to reverse German victory back then, US were in their splendid isolation, Britain barely held on her own and USSR were accomplices to Hitler. So the French had to save what they could. Of course they could have fought from colonies, but wat was the point as France proper was at the mercy of Hitler, and lets remember Hitler envisaged the genocide of nations like Poland, he could do the same with France, to kill all French elites, to destroy all French culture, etc. What good if in the end Allies won if there was nothing left of France. What I apreciate about the French is their pragmatism in wars : they were many times capable to compromises knowing no defeat is final. I prefer a surrender Vichy type then fanaticism and fighting to the bitter end as Germany did in 1944-45 with dire consequences for German nation- human, territorial, material, political, etc. In the course of history the French knew how to win but also how to lose, and knowing how to lose is as important, as you can win many times but to lose once and for all.

    As for Vichy France, they did a dirty and dishonourable charge, someone had to do it, and of course they had to pay for it; it was a loose-loose situation. For their part in Holocaust it was deserved. For the part in colaboration - well the commution of death penalty for Petains says a lot.
    Last edited by CiviC; April 27, 2011 at 11:02 AM.

  11. #51

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens View Post
    The alternative was a union between France and Britain which would allow for joint military command as well as joint citizenship between the two nations. PM Reynaud wanted to continue the fight from North Africa. His cabinate, however, found surrender to Germany more favourable than union with the UK which they saw as becoming the Queens lapdog.
    How is that an alternative that protects a single Frenchman when Panzers are rolling through France? I'm not saying the Vichy regime was a jolly fine thing to do, just that something like the Vichy regime was kind of in the interest of the French people so the occupation would be hopefully less restrictive than actual German occupation where the German Wehrmacht and the SS would have chopped up France into military districts and ruled everything (not just the northern parts) via martial law without even pro forma asking anyone for permission.
    To the Free French these Vichy leaders obviously were traitors. I however can imagine that was the burden someone would have picked up in any case to give France some semblance of a voice against its occupier.


    Cool didnt know that. Did he just want to capture Egypt so he could get to the ME Oil from North Africa?
    Taking Suez had the potential to throw the British empire into big trouble as it would have split Britain's powerbase into the UK and India with only difficult communication lines via Cape Horn remaining. It would have divided Britain's naval resources even further.
    The Suez channel was an essential strategic link for Britain to keep contact with their colonies. The Axis messing with it and now capable to directly threaten alot of their colonial territory (aka formerly comparatively save hinterland) would have created all kinds of headaches.
    "Sebaceans once had a god called Djancaz-Bru. Six worlds prayed to her. They built her temples, conquered planets. And yet one day she rose up and destroyed all six worlds. And when the last warrior was dying, he said, 'We gave you everything, why did you destroy us?' And she looked down upon him and she whispered, 'Because I can.' "
    Mangalore Design

  12. #52
    Lord Claremorris's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, United States of America
    Posts
    1,168

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens View Post
    Very simply. The Axis were not ready to carry on the fight into Egypt after Britain... it take another year at least to get going.

    France Proper was lost. Reynaud knew that. But Africa was not and the Royal Navy and French navy were strong enough to repel any Italian ships and eventually destroy the Italian Navy. The BEF could have reorganized in Britain and then traveled to Africa, landed in Algeria or Tunisia and Continue the fight from there by invading Libya. From there plans would be made for invading Italy.

    If we consider the course of the war much of the fighting between Britain and Germany took place in Africa prior to the US entrance in the War. If Africa can be secured early on then the Axis would have had no way of invading without a proper navy.

    Either invading Libya would have dragged on with a war on both sides with German Reinforcements or a second front would have opened in Turkey and Greece. If Hitler couldnt get to the Oil from Libya maybe he go for the ME.

    That could have been potentially much worse in the circumstances. If Hitler sliced through Turkey he could come down on the British position in the Middle-East from the rear. Churchill made agreements with Turkey whereby the British would come immediately to their aid, and also began giving the Turks modern armaments so Turkey would be able to resist Germany.

    And so what? The French Fleet escapes to Africa, its soldiers help overrun some worthless desert colonies of Italy, and all the while Frenchmen are being eradicated by the Germans back home? Don't think helping Britain take Libya is a good trade off for the lives of Frenchmen.

    The capture of Egypt would force Britain out of the Eastern Med, Britain's position in the Middle-East would be gravely threatened, Persia might be brought over to the Axis, Iraq may throw off the British yoke and join Hitler. In that case Britain's oil supplies would be very jeopardised. Logistically I don't see how a German Army could attack Western India with any strength, but Persia might have been able to cause some mischief there, and with pressure by the Japanese on the other side, then Britain's position in India may well have collapsed. If India fell, well then Britain's power is incredibly diminished.

    Quote Originally Posted by CiviC View Post
    You can edit the title by double clicking it in VV main page.

    To OP, I have an alternative view : were Bonn and East Berlin governements traitors as they were obedient to the West respectively East blocks, instead of pursuing a nationalist German policy.

    Of course, the comparaison is a little bit streched.

    Vichy was a solution for France, the best compromise given the conditions - remember, there was no hope to reverse German victory back then, US were in their splendid isolation, Britain barely held on her own and USSR were accomplices to Hitler. So the French had to save what they could. Of course they could have fought from colonies, but wat was the point as France proper was at the mercy of Hitler, and lets remember Hitler envisaged the genocide of nations like Poland, he could do the same with France, to kill all French elites, to destroy all French culture, etc. What good if in the end Allies won if there was nothing left of France. What I apreciate about the French is their pragmatism in wars : they were many times capable to compromises knowing no defeat is final. I prefer a surrender Vichy type then fanaticism and fighting to the bitter end as Germany did in 1944-45 with dire consequences for German nation- human, territorial, material, political, etc. In the course of history the French knew how to win but also how to lose, and knowing how to lose is as important, as you can win many times but to lose once and for all.

    As for Vichy France, they did a dirty and dishonourable charge, someone had to do it, and of course they had to pay for it; it was a loose-loose situation. For their part in Holocaust it was deserved. For the part in colaboration - well the commution of death penalty for Petains says a lot.
    Thank you sir. Will fix it momentarily.

    Those are essentially my thoughts. Given the circumstances it was the best deal France could get. Nobody could help France and Germany could do whatever they wanted with the French population. I think it's rather enraging that Americans or British, safe behind their stretches of water and their fleets, dare accuse France of treachery. It is my opinion that France sacrificed itself for the World and after the French Armies were defeated it was better for France to compromise than be destroyed.
    Last edited by Lord Claremorris; April 27, 2011 at 11:48 AM.
    "Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."

  13. #53
    MathiasOfAthens's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sverige
    Posts
    22,877

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Depends, were Frenchmen eradicated in Paris and other occupied areas of France? Besides the Jews being round up...

    The Peace may have prolonged the war by creating the African front. If the French remained in the war in Africa they could have eventually opened up a second front in Italy.

    Question is now whether or not Germany would invade the SU as planned.

  14. #54
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Yes, but I also consider Mussolini to be a traitor as well.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  15. #55
    Nyxos's Avatar when in doubt, doubt.
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow (aka France)
    Posts
    4,227

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    They actively cooperated with the Nazis to send French men to work in Germany (the STO, Service de Travail Obligatoire) it was called IIRC), Pétain established a personality cult based on him just like Hitler or Stalin (he was a "good" guy but a dictator nonetheless), my dad isn't named Philippe by accident, and my family is Jewish, so the indoctrination was pretty intense.
    Patronized by Hader.


  16. #56
    Lord Claremorris's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, United States of America
    Posts
    1,168

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens View Post
    Depends, were Frenchmen eradicated in Paris and other occupied areas of France? Besides the Jews being round up...

    The Peace may have prolonged the war by creating the African front. If the French remained in the war in Africa they could have eventually opened up a second front in Italy.

    Question is now whether or not Germany would invade the SU as planned.
    Sure. The Germans did reprisal raids all the time, many Frenchmen worked in German factories. After France surrendered Germany refused to give up French POW's as well, holding onto them as hostages for France's continued good will. I remember reading that when the French did something that pleased Hitler, the Germans released some POW's. I imagine that the Germans could just as easily kill the French soldiers in their custody.

    France would be in no position to undertake operations in Italy, and Britain at the time would not be either. Even if the Allies managed to throw the Axis out of Africa in 1940, they would be sitting around in Africa doing nothing, as if they landed in Italy even a fraction of Germany's 1940 strength would have shattered them both. Furthermore, France's Fleet and France's Armies would be entirely dependent on Britain for oil and for supplies. Britain at the time was hard pressed to supply its own forces and its shipping constringency was very serious. The Western Desert Force never reached more than 200,000 men. Furthermore, knowing Germany's typical efficiency they may well have been able to establish themselves in French North Africa where the French would be totally incapable of resisting them, and Britain would be hard pressed to help out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyxos View Post
    They actively cooperated with the Nazis to send French men to work in Germany (the STO, Service de Travail Obligatoire) it was called IIRC), Pétain established a personality cult based on him just like Hitler or Stalin (he was a "good" guy but a dictator nonetheless), my dad isn't named Philippe by accident, and my family is Jewish, so the indoctrination was pretty intense.
    At the time he was regarded as the saviour of France. He saved France at Verdun and he was allegedly responsible for saving France in 1940. Many people actively cooperated with the Nazis, people from Holland to Poland to Norway, even from the Soviet Union. If you want to talk about Stalin what about him? France would never have been in such a predicament if Stalin hadn't signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler. What gain did Stalin get from that? He watched the French Army get destroyed and then a year later got the whole brunt of the Wehrmacht himself. He dared call Chuchill a coward and said he should immediately set up a second front, Churchill snapped back in his face "Where was our Second Front in 1940?! You were perfectly content to watch Germany destroy France and ourselves without doing a thing!" Now would you call that treachery? The Russians gave Germany far more supplies and assistance than France ever did.
    Last edited by Lord Claremorris; April 27, 2011 at 12:09 PM.
    "Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."

  17. #57

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Surrender is sometimes the bravest gesture you can do. What if in 1944 Hitler admited he can't win the war and agree for surrender to spare millions of lives and Germany from ruins? Napoleon, one of the most ambitious man in history amited defeat twice, in 1814 and 1815, to spare France from a very destructing war on her own soil - he could have mobilise all France against Coallition, like in 1792, and provoke a war and guerilla tens of times more bloody then Spain, instead he had the courage to admit the endgame. The incapacity of Hitler to give up and his final sucide is the proof of his cowardice.

    To refer to what happened to France in 1940, yes it was a humiliting defeat, we can argue about what could have be done to not get there, but once check mated, the French adapted to the circonstances, some compromised with Hitler and saved France, some like De Gaulle seduced the Allies; we have to admire the tenacity of both sides, colaborationists and Free French in their common goal to keep France afloat no matter the circomstances. Again, I'm not condoning many acts Vichy did, against the Jews or even the French, Vichy lowered itself very deep in the dirt, they have very little to be proud of.

  18. #58
    magpie's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ireland,Co Kilkenny
    Posts
    10,179

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    I would say its a grey area, Vichy was the Government of unoccupied France for a couple of years, DeGaulle was a minor player in 1940 and did not have a large following, He was also detested by Churchill.
    Many luke warm supporters of Vichy were outraged by the death of some 5000 french sailors when its fleet was attacked while at anchor by the British fleet. Attitudes tended to harden.
    Anti jewish feeling in France ran fairly high through out high society, A common thing from the 19th century until the 1950,s. It was not uncommon in Britain as well.
    Were they traitors, I think not at the time, but history overtook them.

    sponsered by the noble Prisca

  19. #59
    Lord Claremorris's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, United States of America
    Posts
    1,168

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    Quote Originally Posted by CiviC View Post
    Surrender is sometimes the bravest gesture you can do. What if in 1944 Hitler admited he can't win the war and agree for surrender to spare millions of lives and Germany from ruins? Napoleon, one of the most ambitious man in history amited defeat twice, in 1814 and 1815, to spare France from a very destructing war on her own soil - he could have mobilise all France against Coallition, like in 1792, and provoke a war and guerilla tens of times more bloody then Spain, instead he had the courage to admit the endgame. The incapacity of Hitler to give up and his final sucide is the proof of his cowardice.

    To refer to what happened to France in 1940, yes it was a humiliting defeat, we can argue about what could have be done to not get there, but once check mated, the French adapted to the circonstances, some compromised with Hitler and saved France, some like De Gaulle seduced the Allies; we have to admire the tenacity of both sides, colaborationists and Free French in their common goal to keep France afloat no matter the circomstances. Again, I'm not condoning many acts Vichy did, against the Jews or even the French, Vichy lowered itself very deep in the dirt, they have very little to be proud of.
    Indeed they do not. Yet, I don't think outright treason is one of those things. Debasing themselves before the conqueror is quite different than treason. De Gaulle was not by any means the legitimate head of the French nation. The French Government voted emergency powers to Petain, and then resigned, so his Government was officially sanctioned.

    PS: For some reason I can't edit the title, I double click to where I can change it but before I can do anything it brings me right into the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by magpie View Post
    I would say its a grey area, Vichy was the Government of unoccupied France for a couple of years, DeGaulle was a minor player in 1940 and did not have a large following, He was also detested by Churchill.
    Many luke warm supporters of Vichy were outraged by the death of some 5000 french sailors when its fleet was attacked while at anchor by the British fleet. Attitudes tended to harden.
    Anti jewish feeling in France ran fairly high through out high society, A common thing from the 19th century until the 1950,s. It was not uncommon in Britain as well.
    Were they traitors, I think not at the time, but history overtook them.
    Anti-semitism was high throughout Europe in general. In Eastern Europe many people helped the Germans to kill Jews, even when they were themselves regarded by the Germans as inferior. Also the fact of the Dreyfuss Affair proves that the French Officer corps in the late 19th century (hint hint, Petain, Weygand, etc) was anti-semitic.

    You also bring up another excellent point that I failed to mention. The French were extremely bitter with the British. Many Frenchmen felt that Britain had failed them, whereas France called all her sons to the colours Britain called but a fraction. Then, as you mention, after the French give up, their erstwhile allies attack them and kill many of their sailors. Not to mention that Britain then went on to attack their empire at Dakar, in Madagascar, and in Syria. That tended to make French public opinion rather anti-British, if not necessarily pro-German.
    Last edited by Lord Claremorris; April 27, 2011 at 12:43 PM.
    "Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."

  20. #60
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: Where Vichy French leaders traitors?

    As Pétain was the president, this is mainly focussing on him, as I'm not terribly knowledgeable about Laval's actions.

    This essay has been put together out of various things that I've written on the subject, so it may not be as coherent in places as I would like it to be but I think it gives a rather good, if somewhat simplistic overview to the matter of how Pétain's actions should be regarded, and whether he can be regarded as a traitor or not.

    There are two main and very basic schools of thought on the idea of whether Pétain was a traitor – those who think that he was and those who think that he was not and in fact tried to save France as best he could during the Nazi occupation. This decision must made based upon personal opinion as to what constitutes saving France and the case is more than simple black and white; there is a whole spectrum of actions and motives to evaluate. Furthermore, it is easy to forget that the Vichy regime was not just one man; that Pétain did not hold absolute power and there is every likelihood that his ministers were as guilty as he was. The point I will be arguing is that, as the figurehead, Pétain is the most responsible. He came into power at 84 years old and could have easily stepped down in favour of retirement if he did not like what was happening in the country.

    The most obvious place to look when seeking to rationalise Pétain’s actions into categories of beneficial or not is the address he made to the French nation on August 13th 1941 in which he makes an impassioned plea to the French people to stand by him and co-operate with him in what he sees as the French recovery. In this speech he cites the example of what happened several years previously in Spain and how Spain was only “saved” by “faith, youth and sacrifice” – something which he clearly has in mind for France. Indeed, when Primo de Rivera’s coup d’etat took place in Spain some 18 years previously, Pétain toasted his success at a dinner in 1925 saying “Perhaps circumstances may make it necessary to do in France as was done in Spain”. This early indication that Pétain was eager to start reforming France as early as 1925 supports the theory he was trying to save France and that defeat at the hands of the Germans offered the perfect premise for doing so.

    In his address to the French, Pétain explains that the Germans, pre-occupied in the east with Operation Barbarossa, have delegated the task of making France great again to the government of Vichy while the Third Reich “defends a civilisation”. Indeed, it is easy to forget that while Germany had considerable say as an occupying force in the running of the occupied zone, it ultimately fell to Vichy to administer the whole of France; a huge burden to be placed upon the shoulders of a man in his eighties. Pétain’s age is an important factor in deciding what motivated his actions: perhaps he wanted to see France restored to the brief period of glory she had following the conclusion of the First World War and in his mind this would save France from itself.

    The core of the discussion surrounding Vichy focuses, inevitably, upon the Jewish question and Pétain’s co-operation in carrying out the Final Solution. I believe that the examination of this, coupled with Pétain’s involvement in the passing of anti-Semitic laws in France will give the clearest indication as to whether Pétain really was a traitor to the French people. At his trial, Pétain used the defense that if he could not have been France’s “sword” he could at least have been a “shield”. Under close scrutiny, however, this does not seem to be the case.

    Anti-Semitism was nothing new in France; just as it was nothing new anywhere in Europe. However, this anti-Semitism was a private fear held by a small percentage of the population which meant that these individuals would simply try to avoid contact with Jews as much as possible, not actively participate in discrimination against them. The introduction of discriminatory laws against Jews, however, is entirely different and Germany took the lead in ensuring the belittlement and humiliation of the Jews living in the country at the time. Similarly, the Vichy regime was the first in modern France to voluntarily pass its own anti-Semitic laws, albeit with some coercion from Hitler. What is so appalling about this act is that beyond the obvious racism and bigotry motivating it, there is the fact that these laws were passed to discriminate against French Jews and foreign ones alike.

    In effect, Vichy had become an extension of the Third Reich. What is worse is that Vichy seemed to be acting independently from the Germans: the first anti-Semitic law passed – the Jewish Statute – was drafted, much to the delight of Hitler, of Vichy’s own accord. Indeed, some Vichy leaders even viewed anti-Semitism as a means of winning German favour : Pierre Flandin told a German representative that collaboration would require France to “completely rid herself” of Jewish influence. The most obvious and basic way to achieve this would be to simply deport French Jews, something which Vichy seems to have had no qualms over, weakening the shield argument significantly.

    As soon as it was established, Pétain’s government began administrating fascist laws. It took measures against whom he saw as his opponents: groups like the Francs Maçons, of whom Pétain had a deep seated and largely irrational fear since the events of the 1920s when it appeared that they were taking over the government. The laws which Vichy passed, such as the Jewish statute, were passed with much more zeal and fervour than they had been by the Nazis in Germany. This is, of course, another example of Pétain feeling that he was saving France when, in hindsight, it is very clear that these actions do not constitute salvation.

    Germany’s insistence that Vichy set up an office to co-ordinate anti-Semitic efforts culminated in the Commissariat-General for Jewish Affairs (CGQJ) which was set up in March of 1941. It was headed by Xavier Vallat, a man who claimed in his defence that he had “always been an anti-Semite”, even before Germany invaded. Vallat was a well known representitive of the Catholic extreme right, opposed to Protestants, Masons, and of course Jews. Indeed, he even attacked the then Prime Minister, Leon Blum, on June 12th 1936 for being of Jewish descent, saying:

    “Your coming to power is undoubtedly a historic event. For the first time this old Gallo-Roman country will be governed by a Jew. I dare say out loud what the country is thinking, deep inside: it is preferable for this country to be led by a man whose origins belong to his soil... than by a cunning Talmudist.”

    Vallat’s very appointment is clear evidence of the type of regime Pétain was setting out to create and Pétain would have agreed with the sentiment expressed here. He had seen France dominated by Jews and Masons for far too long and, as far as he was concerned, with men like Vallat on his side, sorting out France would have been a lot easier. As such, Pétain seems to be saving France in his way through the removal of Jews rather than concentrating on the issues of food shortages.

    Initially, France, especially the south, was seen as a refuge for ex-patriate German Jews and later on as a dumping ground for Jews by the Nazis. The south of France ceased to be a (relatively) safe haven for Jews after the signing of the armistice in 1940, of which one particular article stipulated that Vichy had to extradite any German citizens (the vast majority of them Jewish) that had fled to France. Some of these ex-pats had since become French citizens but Vichy simply revoked their citizenships, leaving them at the mercy of Germany. So it seems that, despite Pétain’s “shield” defense, he was willing to strip French Jewish nationals of their citizenship at the behest of the Germans. One could defend him and say that he hardly had a choice; it would have been impossible to hide all the Jews within the non-occupied zone. This argument seems justified until one takes into account the actions of Denmark, for example, in removing their entire Jewish population to the safe haven of neutral Sweden.

    It is, however, too easy to become fixated upon the Jewish question and Vichy France’s involvement in the Final Solution. One must remember that Pétain saw the occupation of France as an opportunity not simply to remove Masonic or Jewish influence (as he saw it) from the French government but to reform France as a whole. This can be illustrated if one looks at the propaganda posters made by Vichy during the war: with the Marshal in his uniform looking quite sternly at the reader with the text “Revolution Nationale” underneath. Indeed, this is what Pétain saw his actions as: a revolution. Out with the old government of dithering ineffectual politicians, in with the new government of strong decision makers; honest men, strong men. Another poster worth mentioning is one which depicts the old order upon a weak and crumbling foundation of ‘radicalism’, ‘avarice’, ‘communism’ and ‘internationalism’ whereas the new Vichy regime is built upon ‘work’, ‘family’, and ‘the homeland’. These three values were seen by Vichy to be more desirable than the old ‘liberté’, ‘egalité’, and ‘fraternité’. Pétain saw his reforms as restoring the lost glory of France and turning back the clock to before the diasterous governments that were in office between the two wars.

    The discussion on whether Petain’s actions were of benefit to France or not is riddled with conjecture and hypothesising about alternatives to collaboration such as the appointing of a gauleiter to administer the non-occupied zone. This discussion is picked up on and examined by the historian Robert Paxton in his book Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order 1940-44. In order to make a proper comparison, Paxton takes France and compares it to a country that was under the administration of a gauleiter such as Poland or Belgium. Paxton cites examples of statistics such as the caloric intake of countries across occupied Europe with France ranking lower than Belgium in terms of food consumed. He also examines other statistics such as the rate of inflation in France, refuting the claim Pierre Cathala made after the war that inflation would have been much higher if taxes were under the control of the Nazis, as opposed to being collected by the government, as they were in the Netherlands for example. In fact, according to Paxton’s sources , inflation in France was the highest in Europe, except in Italy. The fact that France was no better off (and in some cases worse off) than other occupied countries makes Pétain’s collaboration seem somewhat futile: how can he claim to have saved France when fully occupied countries, such as Belgium, fared better?

    Paxton’s assessment, while providing useful evidence that conditions under Vichy were far from ideal, does not provide the answer to my question. He observes things with a cold, clinical eye and his summing up is purely objective. If one would speak to a French person who lived under Vichy one would receive a very different point of view – that Pétain’s efforts made life so much easier for them. Food shortages were not as large an issue as in the Occupied Zone and people’s lives went on relatively unaffected by the war. Later on of course the service de travail obligatoire (STO) would affect a great deal of people. Furthermore, instead of German soldiers, there was the local militia keeping order. Despite the fact that it was always on the lookout for members of the Maquis, its members were at least French and made up of local people.

    The fact that France did not receive any preferential treatment is an important one. She was not exempt from territorial losses (which the other occupied countries did not endure) for France lost Alsace and Lorraine, both of which were incorporated into the Reich. Furthermore, Pétain could not make any claims of limiting French losses because in reality these were the only territories which Germany was interested in. Hitler’s ultimate goal was to unite all German speaking peoples and to this end he annexed territories with significant German minorities in them – the Sudetenland, Holland, Belgium, Austria. He did not annex the whole of France; he took only the parts in which Germans were living. The rest of France was of no interest to Germany so Pétain’s claims to have shielded France, in this case territorially, do not stand up under close scrutiny.

    When one considers all the points, it becomes apparent that the armistice was signed as a way of hastily avoiding further losses and damage to France. Perhaps the Victor of Verdun had seen enough French bloodshed to last him a life time and wanted to conclude peace as soon as possible or perhaps Pétain really did believe it was time for him to change France for the better. The issues discussed in this essay suggest the latter. The armistice, however, was only a temporary reprieve: the un-occupied zone only remained un-occupied for 2 years before Germany deemed it necessary to move troops in. When the Germans did invade, they found numerous camps of French Jews waiting for them to simply be processed and then transported off to the death camps. Vichy France soon became like any other occupied European country – obligated to provide forced labour for the Nazi war machine.

    Perhaps the biggest flaw in Vichy was its own belief that it had some kind of bargaining power with the Germans, as though it was not a defeated country but one on an equal footing with Germany. The only real bargaining tool Vichy had was the threat to give its fleet and empire to the allies, something which Paxton insists it could not exercise without suffering greater disadvantage. Indeed, all this would have done would be to incur the wrath of the Germans and ensure that harsher penalities were imposed on Vichy earlier than they were. It is obvious that Vichy, while outwardly trying to maintain some semblance of independence and sovereignty, was ultimately just hot air. It was forced to back down on any issue it tried to oppose the Germans over, be it forced labour or the paying of occupation expenses.

    While it is true that Vichy saved a part of the country from suffering too greatly under the war, I believe that Pétain ultimately failed in his promise to shield France from Germany. Kedward describes many in the Vichy regime as ‘attentistes’ saying that they simply waited around to see what happened, meaning that Pétain’s regime could hardly be seen as actively trying to ‘save’ France.

    In looking for France’s shield, one would be more successful in an examination of the activities of the Maquis who were also, to some extent, her sword. While being identified as a member of the Maquis meant execution, many young Frenchmen chose it over going into forced labour in Germany; which in turn helped the organisation to grow and help others to avoid the STO. In the end, a clandestine organisation was more effective than an entire government with significant popular support. The fact that almost no traces of Vichy exist and that you would be hard pressed to find someone of the current French generation that had heard of Pétain, let alone Vichy France, is perhaps the ultimate testiment that Pétain failed in creating his vision of an ideal France, safe from Masonic and Jewish influence.

    Some reading:

    Jackson, J (2003) France: The Dark Years, 1940-44, Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Keward, R (1985) Occupied France: Collaboration and Resistance 1940-44 Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

    Kedward, R (1994) In Search of the Maquis: Rural Resistance in Southern France, 1942-1944 Broadbridge: Clarendon Press

    Paxton, R (2001) Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order, 1940-44 New York: Columbia University Press

    Williams, C (2005) Pétain, London: Little, Brown & Co.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •