Talk:Vichy France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Name, French 2 Labor (labour) or Work? 3 Anthem 4 Revert 5 Revert 6 Real Power 7 German occupied France 8 Need for historians 9 Collaborators 10 Map 11 Neighbours 12 captive nation 13 concentration camps 14 POV 15 Occupied France 16 Map 17 post Liberation 18 Concentration camps vs. death camps 19 Review 20 article critique 21 Social? 22 Independence of the S.O.L 23 Massive undiscussed date formatting on many related articles 24 Specific citations needed 25 This sentence doesn't make any sense 26 Indochina

[edit] Name, French

Well, no pb with the standard Vichy, France compared to Vichy France

But I must admit it looks very weird to me to see an article named Vichy France to talk about the Vichy goverment. Is this standard practice to refer to a governement by adding the name of the country behind ?

Why not rather Vichy governement (we French call it Governement de Vichy, that would be sort of equivalent) or Vichy WWII or something equivalent ?

The name of the page would be more obvious as regards the content and would prevent readers to be surprised.

But well, how is that government referred to in english (by the british or american people for example) ? Vichy France ?

User:Anthere

I have usually heard it referred to as the Vichy Regime. Adam Bishop 21:12 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Vicy France" is how I've always heard it. RickK 22:12 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Same here. Except spelt "Vichy France" ;-) --mav 05:26 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

well, that is interesting :-) veny, vidy, vicy. anthere

In contemporary French usage, this government is always called régime de Vichy, or merely Vichy if there is no ambiguity. I do not think I have ever seen gouvernement de Vichy. In English usage, I've always seen it called Vichy France. David.Monniaux 17:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cf. Nazi Germany, "Colonial Egypt". It's an established pattern when talking about past regimes. --Spudtater 15:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Labor (labour) or Work?

The article mentions "the French national motto, was replaced by Travail, Famille, Patrie (Labour, Family and Country)" and I would translate "travail" into the common American english word "work" rather than "labor." Perhaps that would be more understandable to a US audience. "Labour," is read by me to mean a British political party.

Just nit-picking. Great encyclopedia.

[edit] Anthem

La Marseillaise was forbidden in Vichy France. What did the Vichyssoise sing as a national anthem?

Maréchal, nous voilà was effectively used as the anthem, though I don't think it was officially designated as such. Hedgehog 09:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this was an official anthem. I know that after the war De Gaulle provisory governement has not confiscated the song rights that mean if you broadcast the song on radio for documentary purpose you have to pay to the SACEM.... Ericd 20:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to some web site (in French) La Marseillaise was "forbidden by the Germans" but never officialy abolished. Ericd 20:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, the "Marseillaise" had not been suppressed by the Vichy regime, and was used in ceremonies with "Maréchal nous voila". But, in Algiers colleges and schools, the first verse "...Contre nous de la Tyrannie....Aux armes citoyens..." was systematically leaved out. (I was present). User: Philomax 2 8 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

It is not necessary to explain that France declared war on Germany - this smacks of apologetics. What if I added "After France declared war on Germany following Germany's invasion of Poland?" I won't revert if you just change "with the Nazis" to "with Germany". john 06:22, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I can not see how it "smacks of apologetics" to explain an historical fact which is important to understand the context. It's historical falsification to leave the impression that it was Germany who made war on France. You may consider the historical context "utterly irrelevant", but, hey, this is an encyclopedia. / Elizabeth

It doesn't leave that impression. Why on earth is it important to explain Vichy to explain who declared war on whom nine months before the establishment of the Vichy regime? What's important is that France was occupied by the Germans. At any rate, I will only except "after France declared war on Germany" as not being an attempt at pro-Nazi apologetics if you include the fact that France declared war in order to fulfill its obligations to Poland, which Germany had invaded. john 15:56, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you add something like "France declared war on Germany following the invasion of their ally Poland."? CorranH96

[edit] Real Power

"Despite the cooperation of the Vichy government the German forces took control of southern France in November 1942 and the real power came into the hands of Laval." Well... the real power was in the hand of Adolf Hitler. Can someone find a better sentence ? Ericd 21:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] German occupied France

While Vichy was the name for the puppet-state, was there any name (formal or otherwise) for the parts of France that Germany outright occupied? Oberiko 00:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vichy was not the official name; the official name was État Français. It was often referred to as the "free zone", while the German-occupied zone was the "occupied zone". In addition Germany had fully annexed Alsace-Lorraine, and there was a special zone in the northeast of the country. This map should explain the situation better. David.Monniaux 08:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course the name "free zone" is somewhat of a misnomer, because the so-called "free zone" was controlled by an authoritarian, undemocratic government which, despite being supposedly neutral, favored collaboration with Germany.

It should also be noted that the government in Vichy still had some authority over the civil administration in the north. john k 19:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need for historians

I'd be much happier if we could get help from historians knowledgeable about that period. There are lots of complex issues. There is also a lot to say about who staffed Vichy... It apparently was a mix of die-hard reactionaries (i.e. those that wanted to roll back the French Revolution, and liked regimes such as Franco's), straight nazis, and young technocrats, who saw Vichy as the opportunity to push reforms that were blocked by the French Third Republic. David.Monniaux 07:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We do not profess to be experts of any kind on the politics of France. WW II, or the U.S. during this time. However, the references to Churchill and FDR certainly are out of context as is the "recognition" of De Gaulle's position. As David.Monniaux said above, this is an article, an important one, that needs expert NPOV input and expansion. JillandJack 16:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the NPOV tag; furthermore, I think that the references to de Gaulle and FDR are perfectly appropriate. As proved by the event on St Pierre and Miquelon, FDR was downright hostile to recognizing the Free French as a legal authority. David.Monniaux 16:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question regarding Pierre Laval's title: Is the title of "Vice President" in this context: "Pétain designated Pierre Laval as Vice-President and his designated successor"? May need further research & clarification. Nobs 14:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborators

"One example is the founder of L'Oréal, Eugene Schueller, and his associates, André Bettencourt and Jacques Corrèze."

Do you have sources for this? David.Monniaux 16:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The connections between L'Oréal's founder and French collaborationists are widely published and generally accepted. I have added to this page the citation to the book by Michael Bar-Zohar, describing Jean Frydman's struggle with L'Oréal. Rather than ask you to read that book (although it is a fascinating read and I recommend it), I suggest instead that you just google the name Jacques Corrèze.

Right. But on that kind of stuff, better be safe than sorry... David.Monniaux 17:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In context, "better be safe than sorry" is vague and creepy. Given that I'm talking about Nazis, I hope that you will explain in more detail. Your bromide could be read innocently, or as something else - please specify from whom or from what (and to whom or to what) the perceived threat would apply. Given that sources such as the New York Times, Le Point, Le Monde, The Wall Street Journal, and other sources of a similar quality have published the same information, concern about inaccuracy or defamation would be poorly founded. And then there's the book by Bar-Zohar. Even this year's Forbes Magazine Article on Liliane Bettencourt makes reference to her father's involvement with the Nazis, as they have at other times as well:Forbes article: Father's Past Haunts French Billionaire . I know what I'm basing my statements on - solidly researched, published documents that have sustained peer review for more than ten years. What is your objection/change based on? Do you have sources? What exactly are you saying? If "better safe than sorry" were the guiding force at Wikipedia, no one would ever write anything. Twestgard

In your original addition to the article, you named some people, some of which still alive, and alleged they collaborated with the nazis in crimes — and there were no indications of sources. Accusing people of committing crimes without having facts to back this up is punishable as libel in most jurisdictions. Since you now quote some specific sources, I believe you. But I was initially a bit nervous, that's all. David.Monniaux 18:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - sorry I got snippy. Twestgard

[edit] Map

I'd like a map. Did it cover some part of French Basque Country? --Error 23:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC) I agree, a map would be great. Get-back-world-respect 16:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neighbours

Something should be said about Italy-occupied France and the relations with Monaco. --Error 23:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] captive nation

Placed here awaiting source material that the United States Government recognized Vichy as a "captive nation".

"Although the United States recognized that Vichy France was a captive nation" nobs 20:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] concentration camps

"Darlan maintained the Vichy hitlerian regime in the allied camp, and Vichy victims in terrible Southern Algeria concentration camps."

I think I understand what's being said here, but I'd prefer if somebody with better familiarity with the topic were to translate that sentence into better English, just in case I'm getting the wrong end of the stick. --Spudtater 15:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

How about,

Darlan maintained a Vichy regime detention camp in Southern Algeria. nobs 15:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The statement is obviously POV, in calling Vichy a "hitlerian" regime - I think this statement is hard to defend. That said, I think it should be:

Even though he was now in the Allied camp, Darlan maintained the repressive Vichy system in North Africa, including the maintenance of concentration camps in southern Algeria.

john k 15:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

There seems to be a pervasive, leftist point of view of this subject, not just anti-Vichy (which is inevitable) but somewhat anti-rightist as well (n.b. use of words like reactionary and perhaps excesive use of the word fascist [not that it was not a fascist regimé, it was, but this need not be pointed out that often.]) Pelegius 00:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Occupied France

Have we no article on Occupied France, the portion that was not under the Vichy government but under direct German occupation? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this article adequately addresses this subject -- legally, the occupied parts of France remainder under Vichy administration....unless you are referring to Alsace-Lorraine? Jkp1187 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

This really needs a map, showing the limits of Vichy France. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like someone placed a map, but it contains two other colors. What, specifically, do the blue and red represent? Can someone clarify? Arx Fortis 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] post Liberation

The article contains the following statement :

QUOTE Following the Allied invasions of France, Pétain and his ministers fled to Germany and established a government in exile at Sigmaringen. UNQUOTE

In fairness (difficult) to Pétain, it would be more accurate to say that he was abducted to Germany. I think the old boy was looking for the first opportunity to surrender to the Allies. BScar23625 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

i agree —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.140.155 (talk • contribs) 26 May 2006.

[edit] Concentration camps vs. death camps

"…shipping Jews to Nazi death camps" was recently changed to "…shipping Jews to Nazi concentration camps". The Nazi extermination camps (a.k.a. death camps) were distinct from the concentration camps. I don't really too many details about the fates of the Jews who were in France (many of whom were not French Jews but exiles from farther east), but from what I've heard a very large percentage were sent to the death camps. Probably both should be mentioned (something like "…shipping Jews to Nazi death camps and concentration camps"), but I'd appreciate if someone would weigh in with a citation. If not, I guess I can follow up. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review

This article possesses both compelling and weak points. The author clearly describes the actions and policies of the Vichy government and in most cases does not try to rationalize the actions of France. However, the article contains portions that lack coherency.

The author’s primary message, and the most convincing aspect of the article, consists of the concept that the Vichy government willing cooperated with Nazi Germany. The author cited strong evidence when they described the anti-Semitic laws and the Vichy government’s willingness to surpass Hitler’s expectations. Official laws provided evidence for the overall opinion of the government, while the author also described the professed opinions and actions of individuals within the government. By naming officials later convicted of war crimes the author provides further credibility to the article.

The author also places a great deal of emphasis on the inability of the Allied governments to determine which French government they should consider legitimate. The conflicting foreign relation policies between the nations involved provided the basis for this statement.

Two assumptions are made in the article. The author neglects the opinions and actions of average citizens. This conveys the supposition that such people had little or no effect on the workings of the Vichy government. The author also assumes that the only noteworthy actions of Free France were executed when working under Allied leaders. The article goes into detail regarding the Allied leader’s low opinion of de Gaulle and his forces.

The idea that the French planned further negotiations with Germany after the signing of the armistice does not seem plausible and provides the least convincing statement in the article. The belief that the contents of an agreement would change after its signing is naïve, especially if previous negotiations proved unsuccessful. The suggestion of further negotiations appears to be an attempt by the author or the author’s sources to rationalize the injustices that resulted from the Vichy government. However, the statements only serve to undermine the assertion that the Vichy government voluntarily supported Hitler.

The bibliography has quite a few sources. Some sources, written soon after the Vichy government exercised authority, possess the power to provide the outlook of those who experienced the events. The more recent publications offer a resource to the latest research regarding the Vichy government. The number of sources suggests that the author reviewed a variety of opinions before writing an article that contains the best supported work.

The author had difficulty writing in an understandable way. Writing mistakes appear most frequently in the introduction. There are several sentences that the author needs to break up into simpler phrases. A few sentences also need revisions to convey their meaning more effectively. Reorganization would benefit the remainder of the article. For instance, “Relationships with Allied Powers” could include the section on “Tensions with Great Britain”. Portions of the section entitled “Creation of Free France” could also go under the section on relationships, as some of the information has a more to do with that subject than Free France. The article also includes some statements the author placed haphazardly without additional facts to explain them. This appears in the statement about Petain’s style of government in “Vichy’s Composition and Politics” or the information on compulsorily work in “Contributions of French Fascists”. The statements may relate to the section; however, they need additional information if they are to serve a useful purpose.

The author would have benefited from including information about the French public’s opinions of the Vichy government. The thoughts of the average citizen are valuable in such situations. The author seems to have attempted to address the public opinion in some instances. Unfortunately, they did not devote enough time to the effort. The author could make further use of Robert Gildea’s publication that appears in the bibliography to improve the entry.

While the article makes some valid points and supplies useful information, the writing and organization are awkward. Further editing to make the article easily understandable and to insert additional information would greatly improve the quality of the article. The author did provide reasonable support for their main position – that the Vichy government aided Hitler during World War II.

Laurin Goad 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article critique

In its article on Vichy France, Wikipedia purports to explain the events surrounding France’s armistice with Nazi Germany, its temporary government, and its involvement in World War II. The article supposes that the majority of the French people were innocent bystanders who were in no position to challenge those in power. The author comments, for instance, that the armistice with Germany was agreed on almost by accident, under increasingly chaotic conditions in which the government was essentially unable to function. He also asserts that France sought to prevent the Nazis from persecuting people who had sought asylum in France, although the country ultimately capitulated to the demand as a condition of the 1940 armistice. The article’s treatment of the French is ultimately very kind, freeing the majority of the population from responsibility for the deaths of millions of Jews and other so-called undesirables who were murdered during the war.

Are any of these statements specifically untrue? It is undeniable that there were "increasingly chaotic conditions" as the German invasion proceeded. Also, millions of French Jews were not, in fact murdered - a few thousand were. And I'm uncertain why the "majority of the population" ought to be considered responsible for those deaths. Most of the deportations came from the occupied areas, where there were no French authorities involved. Also, there is no "author," wikipedia is a joint project, and the article as you see it is the result of the efforts of various people. john k 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the author operates under the assumption that the worldwide conflict prompted civil war conditions within France, where the sentiments of the people were torn between those who preferred Republican rule and those who wanted an “authoritarian, Catholic government” (3). He twice asserts that France’s authoritarian faction desired a government like Franco’s Spain, although no evidence is provided in support of this claim. He paints a picture of the French citizens living in daily fear of impending civil war, although this assertion, too, is unsubstantiated.

The idea that Pétain and many of his cronies admired Franco is entirely uncontroversial. It is mentioned by both Robert Paxton and Julian Jackson in their books on Vichy. References would be useful, I suppose. I also don't see the article as depicting "civil war conditions within France." It discusses fears of civil war largely in context of Free French attacks on French colonies. john k 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is most convincing in its acknowledgement of the overt anti-Semitism that many French citizens espoused in the period leading up to, and encompassing, the second world war. Even before Hitler’s ideals of genetic purity, there were a number of scientists worldwide who proposed the murder or, at the very least, removal of people from undesirable sectors of society. It was not uncommon or unacceptable to support racist theories about the innate superiority of white Christians, and so it can hardly be surprising to learn that some French citizens were in favor of Nazi plans for Jewish extermination.

This is not actually said, and it shouldn't be. Vichy leaders did aid in deportations of Jews, to their shame. There is no especial evidence that any French leaders were even fully aware of "Nazi plans for Jewish extermination," although some would surely have approaved had they known of it. But like most of those aided in the Holocaust, the Vichy Government largely did so out of opportunism, not ideological zeal. john k 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Conversely, the least persuasive aspect of the piece is the way in which it explains the motivation of French freedom fighters. The author notes that the Vichy government required men to work in Germany for an unspecified period of time, and proposed that this policy swelled the ranks of France Libre with those who were too lazy to put in their allotted shifts. This explanation is hardly sound, as people who joined the Free French marked themselves as government opposition, thereby becoming targets for Vichy persecution. Joining the Resistance was a move for those who felt very strongly about French liberation and not a fallback plan for people who were unable to motivate themselves to work abroad for a few months.

You are, firstly, confounding the Resistance and the Free French, which are not the same thing at all. People in France did not join the Free French, who were in exile, they joined the Resistance, whose connections to De Gaulle in London were quite tenuous. Secondly, there is nothing about laziness, that is your conclusion. The desire not to have to go work in Germany has been discussed by historians as a factor leading people to join the Resistance, which is perfectly plausible - one is more likely to do something as dangerous as join the Resistance when one has a good, personal reason to do so. john k 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The article contains a number of errors and ambiguities that detract from its overall content. There are some instances in which the phrasing is so awkward as to make unclear what the author is trying to communicate. In describing the Vichy regime’s start, for instance, he writes that “The Vichy regime was established the following day, with Pétain as head of state, with the whole powers in his hand” (3). Aside from being a terribly constructed sentence, it is also unclear; the reader is left to discern what “whole powers” means. One can only assume that the sentence is meant to be metaphorical, although that, too, is uncertain.

This is a poorly written sentence, although I'm not sure why you think it's meant to be metaphorical. Pétain was given the whole powers of the state, granted to him by the Third Republic's Legislature in its action dissolving itself. john k 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The author’s narrative is also, by turns, repetitive, grammatically incorrect, and irrelevant to his point. He seems to know nothing about the Vichy government except that it was “authoritarian”, a word that he uses ad nauseum. There are a number of seemingly meaningless asides that leave the reader wondering how they relate to the rest of the piece. The author mentions, for example, that the founder of L’Oreal was sympathetic to the Vichy regime and supported the deportation of Jews and destruction of their property and sacred spaces. While I’ll admit that this knowledge might give me pause the next time I find myself in the hair care aisle at the drugstore, I can’t really see the necessity of including it in the article.

It is worthwhile to note prominent business leaders who supported Vichy. That said, you are certainly right that there isn't nearly enough about the ideological basis of the Vichy regime, or the structure of government. john k 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite the questionable content of the article, the author seems to have done a significant amount of research in preparation for writing it. The bibliography lists twelve sources, both in French and in English, which were consulted; many of these were published by respectable groups like Oxford University Press. In contrast to the scanty number of sources cited in many Wikipedia articles, this one seems comparatively well-informed.

Of course, one cannot be sure that these sources have actually informed the writing of the article. I added some of them, but have only made marginal contributions to the actual article, for instance. john k 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

After reading this particular account of Vichy rule in France, I was left with a few unanswered questions. Throughout the article, the author makes a habit of mentioning certain things, only to fail to adequately explain them. He comments that, while the United States recognized the Vichy government as official, some other countries did not. Which countries were these and what factors affected their decisions? The author also briefly mentions that the Vichy regime thought it necessary to change France’s national motto to “Work, Family, Fatherland”, but does not explain why this was done or how the new motto was significant (3). I would have been interested in knowing how the racially-based laws were tightened up in 1941 but, again, the author does not elaborate on the result of this action. Finally, he alternately maintains that France’s official stance is one of claiming no responsibility, while also mentioning Chirac’s 1995 apology for his country’s part in persecution that occurred. He would do well to clarify the degree to which current-day France accepts responsibility for the events that occurred in the country during World War II.

Britain was notable for not recognizing Vichy. I think most neutral states did recognize it. The change in motto was significant because it essentially showed Pétain and his associates' complete rejection of the French revolution. Vichy was essentially an attempt by those political elements in France which had never accepted the Revolution to rule the country, in the midst of a foreign occupation and an ongoing war. This was the first time this element of French political life had really been in full power since 1830. It was a disastrous failure, in large part because the circumstances of the birth of Vichy indelibly associated it with collaboration with a foreign enemy, an occupying power. Anyway, that's the basic idea. john k 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

—This unsigned comment was added by 128.239.44.237 (talk • contribs) 22 March 2006.

I think the anon makes some decent points about weaknesses in the article, and some other fairly irrelevant points. We could definitely do more to outline the structures of the Vichy Regime, and he is definitely right that the article is very awkwardly organized. What do others think? john k 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Work is needed. BTW, Adam just created the Riom Trial article. About the French people whom refused the Revolution and hadn't been in power since 1830, John K is of course refering to the Legitimists. Concerning the anon's comments on France's own evaluation of its own period, this would make the topic of another article in itself. Historians usually considers this evolution by separating into various periods: immediate post-war (with de Gaulle's official version of a powerful French resistance, inside & abroad, in force; and of the illegitimity of Vichy France - see The Vichy 80); then the various films made (including Shoah by Claude Lanzmann), etc. The trials of Klaus Barbie and Maurice Papon are also of course very important in the understanding of this passé qui ne passe pas ("past that doesn't pass"), an expression which historian Henry Rousso made famous. Tazmaniacs 13:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social?

I would like to see something about the social history and lives of everyday people under vichy france. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.29.62.75 (talk • contribs) 27 July 2006.

[edit] Independence of the S.O.L

In 1943, the S.O.L. became independent"

Who or what is the S.O.L. ?

There is no mention of this term previously in the article and no reference easily locatable in online searches 62.241.191.66 11:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Service d'ordre légionnaire (SOL), a militia organized by Joseph Darnand, which participated in battles alongside the Nazis. Tazmaniacs 13:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The red turned blue... hope that helps! Tazmaniacs 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massive undiscussed date formatting on many related articles

Hello! [User Superjumbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=SuperJumbo] has recently decided to convert all dates from February 6, 1934 (for ex.) to 6 February 1934 riots. Messages left on his talk page show that he is doing all these changes without any editorial consensus. Maybe an administrator could reverse these moves (which have included genuine page moves without any consensus), I got tired after four articles. It's the first time I've seen someone going to the trouble to change all these dates manually, without any consensus, arguing it is "rationalization". Well, I hope Superjumbo takes this well, but not everyone likes "rationalization", and the most common point to find in "rationalization" is that they are usually done against people's will. So, you will be nice to leave a little emotions and feelings in what amounts to a case of personal preferences, where Reason or Logic has little to do, despite your arguing that France-related subjects shouldn't have the date written the same way as on US-related subjects. If it was left to my own personal decision, I would change all dates to February 6, 1934 (and I am not American!). But as it is largely a matter of personal preference, I respect others people's edits and don't take the trouble to change what, it seems, can be changed by a single move on your "date preferences" user. Thanks to Superjumbo to revert and stop his date formatting, and to an eventual good angel administrator who can roll-back all of this without taking the trouble Superjumbo took to change all these dates... Cheers everybody, and most of all to Superjumbo... the devil indeed is in the details! Tazmaniacs 17:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific citations needed

While this article has a seemingly respectable bibliography, there is no information as to how the bibliography precisely informed the writing of the article. Judging by comments such as this one: "Of course, one cannot be sure that these sources have actually informed the writing of the article. I added some of them, but have only made marginal contributions to the actual article, for instance. john k 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)," perhaps that section would be more aptly titled: "Further Reading." royblumy 22:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

True enough. Are there any particular statements in the article whose accuracy you are concerned about, so that people can start by fishing where the fish are? - Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This sentence doesn't make any sense

Within France, the Second World War and the Vichy Regime were intertwined with an internal civil war; one faction opposed the Communist and Republican elements of society, while reactionary elements supported a fascist or similar regime in the mould of Francisco Franco's.

S0 there were two factions -- one opposed to communists, the other supporting fascism?!? I would correct this, but I am not knowledgable enough on this subject to do so. Jkp1187 16:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty incomprehensible, all right. I suspect that the word "opposed" is an artifact of some other version of the statement. I'll try to fix it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indochina

Need something on the Japanese occupation, see Indochina Expedition. Grant65 | Talk 09:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)