If the "we should #remain to avoid short term pain from a vindictive ex" argument is valid, then it should have been valid for Vichy France as well. Obviously it's not.
You can call this sort of vindictiveness "realpolitik" and try to sound sophisticated, but this hardly invalidates my abusive ex-husband analogy.
In France the left is still feeling guilty about the 1938 Munich conference and the whole Pétain government, so we feel that if shit hits the fan, our prior behavior will be judged too.
> Niemöller still isn't studied enough in Europe it seems.
To this day Robert Paxton's works on Vichy France are still seen by many inside France as "controversial" and what have you, so measures like this one here are just what you'd expect coming from "republican" France.
As Bayart said, you are mistaken. Although de Gaulle's forces claimed that the Vichy regime was illegitimate, it it very difficult to justify the claim based on either popular support (Vichy and Petain almost certainly had the support of the majority of French at the surrender of the Third Republic, and for years afterward) or diplomatic recognition (Vichy had recognition from dozens of countries, including the US and Canada). Conversely, de Gaulle himself had difficulty in justifying his claim that he was legally acting on behalf of the Third Republic.
It’s hard to Monday QB the rump part of a destroyed nation (quote from 0). I’m willing to give France a pass on democracy being interrupted during WWII. On the other hand, WWII marked the end of France’s “Third Republic” and the current constitution was established in 1958 (1). I don’t think it is fair to consider the current democracy the same as the one before WWII.
The official postwar French position was that Vichy was a German puppet state. Some historians have since the 1970s rejected that position by arguing, "Vichy had a political agenda of its own, which it pursued without the slightest pressure from Germany".[6] Germany kept two million French prisoners-of-war and imposed forced labour (service du travail obligatoire) on young French men. French soldiers were kept hostage to ensure that Vichy would reduce its military forces and pay a heavy tribute in gold, food and supplies to Germany.
It's not irrational. It's terrible, but it's a conscious and thought out attack on French social order, and a purposeful political statement. Which makes it far worse.
Yes, it was indeed bad when Petain decreed Reynaud's arrest and handed him over to the Nazis to be imprisoned in a concentration camp. It's unclear what connection this has with the conviction of Donald Trump by a jury of his peers for falsifying business records.
You're mixing up things, misconstruing what I said and ignoring the timeline.
The national sentiment in June 1940 when Pétain formed the last government of the 3rd Republic was _very_ pro-Pétain and the country as a whole was pro-armistice. The Vichy regime was formed on the basis of popular support to lead a policy that, if it didn't gather the unconditional support of everyone, didn't alarm many. You have to keep in mind the Parliamentarian 3rd Republic was seen as having failed miserably. All the while 1.8 French men were held as PoWs in Germany and the government was expected to gain them back.
Until mid-1941 pro-Vichy sentiment remained high and the Resistance movement was at best paltry, with people like de Gaulle seen as trouble makers.
Germany invaded the USSR on the on June 22, prompting the Communists in France to enter the Resistance. At the same time the systemic plunder of the French economy, with the help of Vichy, was coming into fruition and starting to be felt. Real antisemitic and repression policies started being implemented in the second half of 1941.
The Vel d'Hiv Roundup happened in mid-1942. In June 22 1942 French workers were incentivised to leave France to work in Germany. Two months later, on August 22 work conscription was instituted and accelerated in late 42 / early 43 while the Germans invaded Southern France, up 'til now nominally in the hands of the French government.
From _that_ moment national sentiment truly turned, Vichy lost all the good will it still had, the French lost all illusions that Pétain was anything more than a mop and large amounts of youths trying to dodge slave work in Germany entered the Resistance.
I think you « grossly misrepresent » French sentiment much more than I do.
With due respect, your comment would benefit from a better understanding of French 20th century history. Vichy France was not Nazi rule, and it was not oppression by invaders. It was oppression of the French and by (some of) the French, albeit with significant coercion from the Nazis.
To be clear: Vichy was a client state of Nazi Germany, but from 1940 to 1942 its southern portion was not occupied. It was collaborationist, but Vichy was not simply ruled from Berlin.
It would not be accurate to imagine Vichy as an entirely foreign invention. Like in much of Europe at that time, there were many domestic supporters of reactionary conservatism and authoritarianism. As for the strength of democratic sentiment in France, remember that a President of France (and republican) once gave it only the faint praise: "republicanism is the form of government that divides France least."
The domestic political situation was in no way unique to France. There existed significant authoritarian movements and tendencies in every European country at this time. You are probably aware that both Portugal and Spain had adopted authoritarianism, and not simply by foreign imposition. My point is: the Nazis found an existing domestic reservoir of authoritarian French willing to collaborate.
Just to provide a few more facts about Vichy:
Vichy was the French government formed after invasion and occupation of northern France by Nazi Germany. Its head of government was general Philippe Petain, and Pierre Laval was its prime minister. Both had been significant domestic political figures in France. Vichy France was formed after the National Assembly voted to give full powers to Petain.
Vichy had its own paramilitary militia (the Milice) consisting of about 30,000 Frenchman. This was similar to the SS and Gestapo, but considered more dangerous by resistance French.
Of course, unoccupied Vichy adopted anti-Semitic policies and deported Jews to be murdered by the Nazis. Maurice Papon (later the prefect of police in Paris 1958-1967) participated. You can look up yourself his subsequent misdeeds during the Algerian War. Unfortunately, even after the fall of the Nazis, there continued (and continue) to be significant reactionary and authoritarian political elements in France.
If you wish to learn more about this period, you can start here:
Two wrongs don't make a right. France is at fault and so is the US in many of the examples you cited here, so why do you keep defending the indefensible and morally questionable policies of the French state?
I should have mentioned the biggest problem, which is that the whole enterprise of the Vichy government was essentially a coup against the Republic, taking advantage of the German pressure to overthrow the government of the day - many members of the Vichy leadership had a history of involvement in anti-Republic groups (Monarchists, anto-secularists, and so on) and some were involved in planned coups in the 30s.
You can call this sort of vindictiveness "realpolitik" and try to sound sophisticated, but this hardly invalidates my abusive ex-husband analogy.
reply