How are the Vichy viewed in modern France

[Mount Suribachi]

Been pondering this a bit lately, how does modern France regard the Vichy?

Traitors who sided with the nazis?

Realists who tried the to be pragmatic in a difficult situation?

Loyal Frenchmen?

An embarassing episode in French history that they try to forget?

I know it frustrates me no end when I read of fighting in WW2 between the British/Americans and the Vichy - whether in N Africa, or the whole French fleet thing, or the 6 month and 1 day resistance the French put up on Madagascar (just long enough to qualify for a bonus).

Apologies to the mods if this is more of a Backroom topic.

[Dutch_guy]

Well I'd say a combination between option 1 and 4.

When Holland was overrun by the Germans they naturally installed a puppet goverment to rule holland, now I know that we didn't and still don't like that particular part in our nations history and I can't imagine the French thinking otherwise about their former Vichy goverment.

:balloon2:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Just Frenchmen following French military doctrine ~D ~D

I'd like an answer though too, I've been thinking WTF?

[Franconicus]

I do not know about the French. Just can give you my own view.

I think Petain did not have good chances. France had obviously lost the war against Germany. That was not a big thing. They had lost many times before and they had won many times before. If I remember right there were many French who thought that all this wars were stupid and who wished to find an agreement with the Boschs, maybe an alliance or something like we have today.

After France was defeated best thing that could have happened to them would have been end of war. Why should they fight while their country was occupied. Churchill coud go on, his homeland was not occupied. De Gaul was just crazy. Fighting a war that was over without any legitimation.:no: In the beginning he was nothing but a pet of the Brits; and even they did not know what to do with him.

Unfortunatelly for him, Hitler did not use the opportunity to make peace with France. This would have been a clever move. Instead of this he offered peace to Britain, that was not defeated. :no:

When the allies were about to win, Petain was in an awful situation. If he supported the Allies, the Germans would have occupied all of France. And he could be sure that De Gaul would execute him anyway. Fighting against the Aliies was not good, too. So he tried to find his path between cooperation with the Germans and not too much resistance against the allies.

I know that Petain did a lot of bad things. However, I think he did not a choice. He had to find an arrangement with Hitler.

[Mount Suribachi]

Franconius, I think you have a point regarding the French attitude to "losing the war". They expected that, as in the past, the loser would give up a bit of land, and things would go back to how they were before. They just didn't grasp the whole nazi concept of domination of Europe.

Related to that is the defeatism and panic that set into the French government and military high command almost from the moment of the German invasion. When the surrender came Germany had occupied what, a quarter of France? Large parts (the majority?) of the French army was still intact, indeed the British wanted to land another armoured division in France further down the coast until they realised the French were about to surrender.

In places the French army put up tremendous resistance, and I always find it illuminating to look at the number of Germans killed in the battle of France - we tend to think of them rampaging through the French and British armies with barely a casualty, yet the lost a lot of men (48,000 KIA in 6 weeks is the number I have in my head, I'm sure someone will correct me).

Of course, none of this tells us how the Vichy are viewed in modern day France.

[Franconicus]

MS,

I do not think that in respect of dominating Europe Hitler was so different to Napoleon, for example. So what? The Germans (Prussia, Austria and others) lost several times and tried again afterwards, until they finally succeded.

The question was: Is this really the fate of Germany and France. WW1 was so stupid, so many people died on both sides, the peace treaty was so bad and it only lasted a couple of years. I guess many people in France wondered if it was not possible to break this vicious circle and arrange with the Germans. Like they did after the war.

Hitler lost this chance.

a) What would have happened if Hitler would have made peace with Petain and retreated the German troops. France would have had no or almost no motivation to fight. (I think they would have been glad to accept the German dominance of Poland and would even supported the German invasion in the USSR).

b) What would have happened if GB had stopped fighting. Hitler would have been glad and he would have offered excellent conditions. His goal was Russia, not Britain. And the Brits had no symphaty for the Soviets. I guess an agreement was not impossible. The hurdles were Churchill (who was a bullhead) and Hitler (who was a fool; a criminal and mad fool).

In both cases France could have find a new position in Europe without a worldwar.

[Brenus]

“Related to that is the defeatism and panic that set into the French government and military high command almost from the moment of the German invasion. Where did you read that? The French weren’t enthusiastic to the idea to go to war for a second time in a generation… However, the plan developed by the Allies (UK and France was logic, and exempt of all panic or defeatism. The 2 countries had a very good idea of their weakness, especially for the Air Forces. The French were desperate to get their new planes, either Dewatines or Morane-Saulnier… They wanted to buy time. Hitler was aware of this strategy and wanted to attack as early a possible.
The German attack on Belgium was expected and the best armies, including all armoured divisions were prepared for the shock. The B.E.F was also deployed in the region.
When the attack from the Ardennes arrived, the French had no reserves there. Several counter attacks were launched, some with success, by the Stukas made the difference.
Some units disbanded, some resisted.
“indeed the British wanted to land another armoured division in France further down the coast until they realised the French were about to surrender”: Same question? Where did they find the tanks? On the beach of Dunkirk? The French informed the English, and that is why De Gaulle was in England, as envoy of Paul Reynaud…
Now about Petain: France was defeated, this is for sure. The French were stunned by the defeat, they were considered as the best army of the times because WW1.
UK was also beaten, during the same battle for the same reasons, by the way. Dunkirk wasn’t a victory. And Dunkirk succeeded because the French Army in Lille immobilised the German army. That is why Hitler stopped the Panzer. The outcome of the battle of Lille wasn’t clear at this moment (if you don’t believe this, read Churchill’s Memories).
So, an armistice was inevitable. However, he wasn’t obliged to take power by a Coup, not obliged to proclaim racist laws, not obliged to collaborate.
During a period of time, the majority of the French believed in the Savour of Verdun, but soon enough, the STO obliged they started to realise that Petain wasn’t trying to fool the Germans but to work for them (meeting at Montoire with Hitler, French volunteers send on the Eastern Front, Compulsory Work, etc.
For me, Petain is a traitor. Without him, probably more French would have joined the Free French. He sold France for his personal ambitions.

“Hitler lost this chance.” Like he did in Byelorussia, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, in all countries were he was seen as a liberator. His racism was so high, so imperative, that it went against his own interests.

[Mount Suribachi]

“Related to that is the defeatism and panic that set into the French government and military high command almost from the moment of the German invasion. Where did you read that?

Um, almost everything I've ever read on the Battle of France?


However, the plan developed by the Allies (UK and France was logic, and exempt of all panic or defeatism.

The plan was anything but logical! Instead of deploying their armies on the Belgian/German frontier, they left their armies on the Belgian/French frontier because they didn't want to "provoke" the Germans :dizzy2: So when the battle started, they dutifully marched into Belgium to defend her, only to find themselves out-flanked and cut off!


“indeed the British wanted to land another armoured division in France further down the coast until they realised the French were about to surrender”: Same question?

Read it in last months Military Modelling in an article on the history of the A9 Cruiser tank.

[Brenus]

It took me time but I will answer your point:
The French didn’t panic, they had a plan: in November 1939. Gal..Gamelin knew that most probably, the Germans won’t respect Holland and Belgium neutrality. As soon the German will cross the borders (belonging to a democratic country, you can’t put yours troops on their territory without their agreement, that the answer on one of your remarks), the Allies will go on the Dyles river, making possible a short front line, a protection of the coal mines of Hainaut and Borignage. In December, Gal Georges and Gamelin decided that parts of the 7th army will go on the Escault to join with the Dutch forces in Breda. The plan has his flaw, but nothing indicates a panic from the French side.

About the reinforcement proposed by Churchill, we have three account of the meeting when the French told Churchill that they will ask for an armistice. De Gaulle, Petain and Churchill wrote about it. De Gaulle wrote that Churchill reminded Petain that in March 1918, during the battle of Amiens, he succeeded to win the battle. Petain then answered “Yes, but I sent 40 divisions to rescue your troops. Where are you 40 divisions?” Edward Spears, Churchill’s personal emissary noted that the “lyric description of Paris collapsing on its heroic garrison refusing the defeat” didn’t appeal to the French Generals. Weygand even added that to transform Paris in a field of ruins won’t change the end. 11 days after the fall of Paris, the French army was still fighting.

So, can you ask your Magazine where they find this information? Honestly, a division wouldn’t change a thing. The Germans tactic wasn’t to fight, but to avoid the contact, and to cut the other army in small pieces they will finish later.

I know I won’t succeed to change you opinion. But, if you read REAL history books, you will find, as I did, that not only the French fought, but they fought bravely. The proof: the Gal Waeger gave the Honours of the War to the French defenders of Lille.