Vichy - part two

[Seamus Fermanagh]

“I don't think Petain was a fan of the Nazis” I don’t know, what I know is he was friend of Franco, not a hard line Democrat.

He was definitely on the reactionary side, the race laws etc. were hardly a mark of liberality.

““but I think his status as a "traitor" was as much for being a traitor to De Gaulle as to France.” I would disagree on that. He took power by a Coup (he put troop in the room when what left of the Parliament he authorised to enter was still refusing to give the full power). So he betrayed his country and constitution.

That I did not know. I take your point.

“their morale weakened by the pace and disorienting effect of the German blitzkrieg.” In fact I am not sure of that. I read somewhere (recently) that the last days of the 45 days of the battle of France, the German loses climbed. Unlike USSR, France hasn’t the land reserve needed to recover from the first shock of the Blitzkrieg. It seems more and more than the chaos happened just after the first shock, then the troops regained their fighting spirit. So it means the necessity to go fast for the Germans.

Absolutely. Even the brief pause during and shortly after Dunkirk allowed French forces to recover some of their balance. France was unable to effectively combat German tactical doctrine -- but they inflicted almost as many casualties on the Wermacht as they suffered. There is good reason that the German forces were not able to mount a major offensive until the Spring of the following year.

“he had no doubt come to abhor the idea of killing so many soldiers when he did not believe he could change the eventual outcome” That is Petain justification, yes. And up to some point I agree. 90.000 soldiers killed in 45 days, plus injured, it was worst than the WW1 in the same period of time.

Actually, as a result of the Battle of the Frontiers (August 1914) French casualties in the first month of active combat in WW1 were between 300,000 killed, wounded, and captured. But your real point is that the army had been hammered badly in a very short time frame (true) and that France did not have the ability to "trade space for time" to effect a recovery (spot on).

So, the Armistice was inevitable. However, Petain should have gone in exile, like other Leaders of other invaded country. No, he choose to meet Hitler at Montoire, he choose the Collaboration and to forced young French to the Service de Travail Obligatoire (Compulsory Work Service? Hum, not happy of my translation), encourage the recruitment of the L.V.F (verst. Franz. Gren. Inf. Reg. 638) then the Franzosisch SS-Freiwilligen-Sturmbrigade, took without any request from the Germans even worst racial laws than German’s one (I know a jew whose uncle died of saddens when he had to give back his Legion d’honneur, won on the battle field, and awarded, O Irony, by Petain), agreed with the building of the Milice etc. Because Petain, an estimated 100.000 French collaborated with the occupiers.

I wonder how much of this was willing (certainly some, especially the early enactment of anti-semitic provisions) and how much was simply the price of the quasi-freedom left to them. You do make a good case though.

“France would have been fully split and a civil war (at least after Germany's occupation ended) would have become almost inevitable (there was certainly enough tension as it was with Vichy, De Gaulle's Free French, and the often communist-led members of the Maquis)” France was split in a civil war, even before the end of the German occupations. Milice versus Maquis, and internally, Socialists, Communists, Monarchist Christian Democrats, Gaullists, if not openely in war, were not so far. That is why De Gaulle sent Jean Moullin, a Socialist but Prefet de Region, to unit the different movements. French are specialists in civil war.[/QUOTE]

You do seem to do your civil wars with "style." We've only had the one, and it was ghastly, and we have fortunately never revisited the genre.