Talk:Vichy France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France Portal
Vichy France is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). Add comments

Contents

[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] Death tolls

The article spends a bit of time near the end explaining the counter-violence done against Vichy administrators and supporters after the war, but I don't see any total numbers for the people who died as a direct result of Vichy policy. If possible, I'd like it broken down between those sent to camps who died, captive soldiers who died, people arrested and killed for counter-Vichy activity, and non-combatants killed in Vichy police actions.

[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) Actually, Hitler had a really hands-off approach to France, and most of what happened in Vichy was due to French initiative--so yes, Laval is correct. I refer you to Robert Paxton's book Vichy France-Old Guard, New Order, for more on this argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninamariaconzuela (talk • contribs) 03:01, 15 April 2008 (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)

Reactionary is used here in the strict sense of the word. Counter-revolutionary could also be used. Fascist is unadequate. Tazmaniacs 21:34, 19 February 2007 (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)

Haven't got any source under the hand, but you are correct, AFAIK, in your assumption that a lot went to death camp. Most never came back from the Vel'd'hiv raid. Tazmaniacs 21:32, 19 February 2007 (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)
It was my understanding that the bibliography section was a "further reading" section. "Sources" would be what you refer to. But all in all, I am much more in favor of using references template and of referencing each, debatable part, as articles change too fast here to make it useful to just put a "sources" section. Tazmaniacs 21:31, 19 February 2007 (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)

[edit] Ugly formatting of series boxes at top of page

Ugly formatting of series boxes at top of page

[edit] Dead link in references

(French) "Non à la biométrie, par Giorgio Agamben", Le Monde, December 5, 2005. Retrieved on [[8 May 2006]].

This page just brings up a blank page. Anyone got an alternative link? Je ne parle pas français, so I'm not going to have much luck on LeMonde. MrZaiustalk 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. Probably a copyright problem, Le Monde took care of it. Good for them. But, please, in such cases, take out the link, retain the reference (the newspaper article did not disappear because it's not anymore on-line). Tazmaniacs

[edit] Infobox

Could this article use the Former Countries Infobox? Like This:

Blanked

Perhaps? Kevlar67 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. It is not a former country. Beside, "client of Nazi Germany" (as the expression "puppet state" for that matter) is more than subject to caution. Vichy willfully collaborated with Nazi Germany, but nothing forced it to do so. It is the only country in Europe that did that. The French police, the SNCF train company, all were glad to help. Tazmaniacs

[edit] 10 July 1940 vote of the full powers

I have cleaned up this part. Two remarks: first, I don't know why, but the date in the first subsection was "16 of June", which is an obvious mistake (or vandalism?). Second, the numbers were wrong. I have corrected them, based first on fr:Liste des 80 parlementaires ayant voté contre les pleins pouvoirs à Philippe Pétain le 10 juillet 1940, second (to make sure) on a history textbook. While I was at it, I have included the three main arguments cited by this textbook which allege that the vote was illegal, and thus that Vichy was an illegal government. I also included the argument made by Vichy supporters claiming it was legal. Furthermore, I've included the pressions & intimidations exerced by Laval and Raphaël Alibert on representants of the people. Also, I've put the full content, in English & French, of the text voted by the parliamentaries whom, mind you, were senators and deputies. I hope this most important content will stay here. If there is any syntax problem or problems of understanding, please leave me a note. Thanks. Tazmaniacs 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rm sentence

I removed the following sentence. Not that I'm shocked by it, everyone know Mitterrand's obscur sympathies and past, but it could as well mention Maurice Papon and hundreds of others. In other words, it should be expanded and explained. In the current state, it just seems like an ideological attack against one who was neither worse, nor better than most. Furthermore, I don't really understand why it was placed there. Here's the sentence in question: "Furthermore, some members of the Vichy Government, such as young François Mitterrand, claimed to have used their official positions as "insiders" to further the goals of the internal resistance." This would be more appropriate in the part following the Liberation of France, where Vichy officials tried to claim they were in fact Resistants. Tazmaniacs 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The only state in Europe ... ?

To be honnest, I have not understood quite well the reason Tazmaniacs has reverted my suppression of "and is the only state of Europe which did so in such a voluntary extent" (Introduction), arguing that "all major historians state that; take a book by Robert Paxton if you need to". Obviously, Neiher Paxton nor anybody else could have claimed that Vichy France could have collaborated more voluntarily than Croatia or Hungary, for example. --EdC2 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Independent State of Croatia" was occupied by the Nazis, while Hungary had signed the Tripartite Pact and was an ally of the Third Reich. This is very different from France, where the French police deliberately made raids in the so-called "free zone" to deliver Jews to the Nazis. It is also very different from the behavior of the French police which gave children to the Nazis during the Vel'd'hiv raid although nobody asked them for. Nothing forced the French police, headed by René Bousquet and Jean Leguay, to such Collaborationism. And Vichy was, in theory, a "free and independent state", nothing to do with occupied Croatia. I hope this answer your question.Tazmaniacs 04:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's say that I have an idea of your point of view. You have not convinced me that "Vichy France is the only state of Europe (Willfully collaboration) which did so in such a voluntary extent". The fact that France was not so easily comparable to Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, but also, you could add, to Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Denmark etc... does not implies that the questionable sentence of the introduction is acceptable.
What is the point of view of historians ?
So far the involvement to deportation of Jews can be considered as the major criterion for measuring the level of collaboration, Raul Hilberg is supposed to be the relevant reference author. Obviously, he never pointed out that "Vichy France is the only state of Europe which did so in such a voluntary extent". Have a look to "The destruction of the european jews". (I have the 2006 french edition, See Chapter VIII Deportations, the first 2 pages of "France" section (p.1122-23 of french edition)): "The Vichy government attempted to maintain the process of destruction within some limits… French authorities tried to avoid every radical action… When German pressure intensified in 1942, the Vichy government took up position behind a second line of defence: Foreign Jews and immigrants were abandoned while the French jews were protected, and to some extent, this strategy succeeded…" This was a probably a poor translation to english. Better english speaker than me will improve it.
In 1993 Robert Paxton gave an article of 45 pages entitled "La collaboration d'état" in 2 volumes La France des années noires: "What makes of Vichy France a definitively unique case is that the head of the state and his government at Vichy has achieved a change of politic regime while the country was facing an occupation performed by foreign force. In other terms, not only does Vichy France commited collaboration through its administration, but it took advantage of this occupation for achieving a domestic politic revolution. This is without any equivalent in occupied Europe. Quisling in Norway never enjoyed a politic position strong enough for accomplishing a "National Revolution". Additionnally to France, only two other states, recently created in eastern Europa Slovakia and Croatia, took advantage of German occupation for accomplishing a radical change in the government system."
Werner Rings is a german author who actually intended to compare different Europa countries under german occupation (Life with the ennemy translated in english in 1982, Weidenfeld and Nicolson). I recognize that he could be considered more as a journalist or a writer than an historian, but few authors did such a comparison work. I searched in his book for passages where France is ranked as number one. I found that at p.278-279 of english edition "Particularly beneficial to Hitler's war economy was the "qualified collaboration" practiced by men like Marshal Pétain and his government associates, who believed that political commitment would guarantee them a socially stable future and even, if all want well, a lucrative Hitler's mighty empire…Although France made a bigger industrial effort to the German effort than any other country in Europe - 42% of the total countless Frenchmen were deported.
In conclusion, as the point of view expressed in the questionable sentence is not obviously shared by relevant historians, I still propose to remove it from the introduction. I apologize to not contribute directly to the article, but my english is just good enough for making some corrections. --EdC2 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Based on the Hilberg quote you provided, which is clearly representative of one of the perspectives adopted on Vichy France by historians, I propose that, rather than delete this sentence, we work out another formulation of it. Although the details of the state collaboration must of course be developed in the body of the article, the lead can not bypass this crucial factor, I hope you will agree on that. Your quotes of Paxton and Werner Ring seems to back-up this claim (which, by the way, was not first inserted by me in the article). What I find quite troubling in Hilberg's quote is the "to some extent, this strategy succeeded." What is the basics of this judgment? I don't pretend to be an expert, but clearly French Jews were also deported. You know that the logistics of the Holocaust were crucial. When Adolf Eichmann and Berlin decided to have some trains for this or this date, these trains had to be filled up. French police tried, on some occasions, to postpone raids in order to have the time to get enough foreign Jews. The Gestapo responded by saying that they would have to take French Jews, which they did. So, in what extent exactly did this nationalist strategy succeeded? Tazmaniacs 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
To my opinion, it is not necessary to attempt a comparison with other countries at the introduction stage. Regarding the comment of Werner Rings, it concerns the economic collaboration, France is the largest contributor, but it can be hardly said that this collaboration was "willful", since it results from the "occupation cost" of 400,000,000 francs per day (The daily salary of a worker is of some 100 francs). 4 millions workers must work for Germany, additionally to the 1,8 millions of POW. These are the conditions of the victor, but Pétain was volunteer for administrating the country. Is it possible to summarize that within a single sentence ? See the following section for the answer about Hilberg. --EdC2 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vichy and the Jews (March 2007)

Hilberg wrote "Foreign Jews and immigrants were abandoned while the French jews were protected, and to some extent, this strategy succeeded…"

Tazmaniacs asked :"What is the basics of this judgment?...So, in what extent exactly did this nationalist strategy succeeded?"

Coarsely, Hilberg means that Vichy police was not involved in deportation of french jews, and as a consequence "only" 1/6 of the french Jews were deported (1/3 of the foreign jews) For those who can read the french, see the french wiki [1]. I can translate some statistics: "There was, in 1940 some 300,000 Jews in Metropolitan France, among them150,000 had the french citizenship and 150,000 were foreigners. 2/3 of this overall population, but the verry large majority of the foreign Jews are living in the Paris area. Among 150,000 french jews, 90,000 are of old stock, and half of the remaining 60,000, generally native to central europa acquired French nationality in the thirties. 25,000 french Jews and 50,000 foreign Jews were deported, that means that "only" 1/6 of the french jews, but far less for the old stock jews, François and Renée Bédarida wrote (La France des années noires)".

As Tazmaniacs noted, in August 1942, the French police arrested 7,000 personnes in unoccupied zone. But after august, because of the protests of some bishops known to be fervent supporters of Vichy, the french police was practically no more involved in raids. Tiso also will show reluctance to deport Jews from June 1942, but at this date, he had already delivered most of the jews of Slovakia. Horthy also stopped the raids in Budapest on July 8 1944, but after the deportation of 440,000 jews.--EdC2 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Paxton said, during the trial of Maurice Papon - I underline ; and I won't take the bother translating everything:

"le gouvernement de Vichy « a pris des initiatives ». (Vichy took initiatives) « L’armistice lui donnait des marges de manoeuvres »... C’est ainsi de son propre chef que Vichy décide, sur le plan intérieur, de mettre en oeuvre la « révolution nationale ». Après avoir désigné les prétendus coupables de la défaite - « démocratie, parlementarisme, cosmopolitisme, gauche, étrangers, juifs... » « l’antisémitisme était un thème constant », rapporte l’historien -, elle s’oppose, au début, aux desseins allemands.
« A cette époque, les nazis n’ont pas encore décidé d’exterminer les juifs mais de les expulser. Leur idée n’est donc pas de faire de la France un pays antisémite. Au contraire, ils veulent y envoyer les juifs qu’ils expulsent », dit Robert Paxton [...] Les nazis avaient besoin de l’administration française », explique l’historien en soulignant qu’« ils se plaignaient, sans cesse, de manquer de personnel ».
« L’Etat français, lui, a participé à la politique d’extermination des juifs. » « Comment peut-on prétendre le contraire quand on a mis à leur disposition de tels moyens techniques, administratifs ? »
« Contrairement aux idées reçues, Vichy n’a pas sacrifié les juifs étrangers dans l’espoir de protéger les juifs français. Dès le début, au sommet, on savait que le départ de ces derniers était inéluctable. » (Contrary to preconceived ideas, Vichy did not sacrifice foreign Jews in the hope of protecting French Jews. From the start, at the summit of the hierarchy, it was known that the departure of these ones was ineluctable).
« les Italiens ont protégé les juifs. Et les autorités françaises s’en sont d’ailleurs plaintes auprès des Allemands ». (The Italians have protected the Jews. And the French authorities complained about it to the Germans). Robert Paxton donne une accablante leçon d’histoire

So long for your cherry picking of Robert Paxton... Tazmaniacs 00:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You were asking about the judgment of Hilberg. Your quote proves that Paxton and Hilberg do not agree. Note that Azéma wrote (I attempt to translate from french): "Pursuing an anti-semitic politics of its own, Vichy sacrifices cooly foreign and stateless Jews in order to save french citizens" (Azéma et Wievioka, Vichy 1940-44, Perrin-tempus, 2004, p.271). Note also that the sentence of Paxton From the start, at the summit of the hierarchy, it was known that the departure of these ones was ineluctable which is actually a rewriting of Marrus and Paxton, Vichy et les Juifs, (1981) p.83, is strongly questionned by Asher Cohen in "Persécutions et sauvetages, les Juifs français sous l'occupation", 1993 p.134. Finally, it is a rather banal case where different historians have not exactly the same point of view. --EdC2 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have very thorough knowledge of Vichy, at least of having read closely various historian books. This makes it, to me, amazing that you can claim that, at the end, this "is a rather banal case where different historians have not exactly the same point of view." I don't think the problem is only of "opinion," since history is based on facts - and interpretation, of course - and that the discussed matter is quite serious. This conflict of interpretation is not at all banal. Tazmaniacs

[edit] Vichy and the Jews (September 2007): beyond the Nazi expectations ?

On sept 2, Tazmaniaks wote:

" While it is certain that the Vichy government and a large number of its high administration collaborated in the implementation of the Holocaust... Former Vichy officials later claimed that they did as much as they could to minimize the impact of the Nazi policies, although mainstream French historians contend that the Vichy regime went beyond the Nazi expectations."

Is there at least one historian of Vichy France who would have contended that regarding the implementation of the Holocaust, the Vichy regime went beyond the Nazi expectations ? Who ? In which book ? which chapter ? --EdC2 07:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is not to debate about Vichy, but about the article. Please bring specific problems with the article, instead of contesting what I said over a year ago. For your curiosity, the article does recenses historians who do so: Robert Paxton and Maurice Rajsfus, for instance. Tazmaniacs 16:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where did the categories go?

Can't find where the categories are on the edit page (apart of two, at the end, as usual). If someone find them, can he put them at the end? And, by the occasion, remove the "Category:Former countries of Europe": the country is named in France, and is very real today. One could plead to put in the "Category:Defunct states of Europe", but this is very controversial, as the French administration continued after; as many civil servants remained in function (see Maurice Papon for a nice example), and as there are various continuous tendencies before, during, and after Vichy ( technocratic reforms, concentration camps, which were opened under the Third Republic, and existed after Vichy). You can't dispell a historical debate by putting a Wikipedia category, claiming: Vichy is finished. Ask what do the family of the 1961 Paris massacre think about Papon & the police officers who have successively made their career under the Third Republic, Vichy, the Fourth Republic & the Fifth Republic. Tazmaniacs


[edit] This belongs to the discussion area, not to the main article

Liv110 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't the revisionist or negationist website or webblog of Lacrimosus, it is an encyclopedia.
The Vichy regime didn't fall from the sky but the preamble deleted by somes of you, but the mention of other European states governed by nazi gauleiters or military nazi administration deleted by somes of you, .... is it so difficult to be objective and impartial ? (the south Vietnamese regime wasn't it a puppet government of USA? the Iracqui regime isn't it a puppet regime of USA ?) This is the observations of a family of French Resistants -with one of them Death for France- who hate the Vichy regime. Moved by --Loren 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool down Liv! :) Two problems with your "preamble": first, it's a chronology, and not a text. Second, is that really necessary? Nobody is claiming that Vichy camed out of the sky, and the second subsection, after the "Overview", is about the "Fall of France" and the circumnstances of the 10 July 1940 vote. Your preamble is giving well-known information available at World War II, Events preceding World War II in Europe, Causes of World War II. This entry is about Vichy France, you are, I think, unnecessarily extending it. Thoughts? Tazmaniacs 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [edit] The July 1942 Vel'd'hiv round-up

Removed repeating info.

Can you please precise what does this repeat exactly (please localize the redundance by pointing out subsections and paragraph). Thanks, Tazmaniacs 16:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge German occupation of France during World War II here

This is an artificial division and WP:POVFORK. Although Germany only occupied Southern France after Case Anton (1942), the Vichy regime retained authority both in the North and in the South (something made evident, for instance, by having Jean Leguay, second-in-command of the French police, in Paris). Tazmaniacs 16:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential standard

I believe this article may benefit from some information about the origin of the standard. The Free French Forces article has some information about the Cross of Lorraine on their flag. Does anybody have some background on the symbol displayed on the presidential standard? Phaunt 11:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous date references

the summer of 1943
from the summer of 1942 to the end of the autumn of 1944
late summer 1944
as soon as spring 1942

These date references need to be cleaned up to comply with the date formats in the Manual of Style. Suggested revisions:

the summer of 1943 -> May/June/July/August/September 1943 (whichever month is correct) or use "the middle of 1943" if no more precise wording is available
from the summer of 1942 to the end of the autumn of 1944 -> substitute appropriate months, or use "the middle of 1942 to late 1944". The wording suggests that month names may be obtainable from primary references.
late summer 1944 -> August 1944 or September 1944
as soon as spring 1942 -> substitute earliest month of implementation, to match intent of article (eg: as soon as March 1942)

-- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 12:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death toll, eugenics, labour

1. Thy "Death toll"section is entirely about the fate of Jews under Vichy. This is of course very important, but there were other categories of victims: Resistance memberd deported under Nacht und Nebel; casualties of Allied bombing; mentally handicapped (see comment 2); Spanish internees; possibly Gypsies. My suggestions:
- broaden the section on the death toll;
- create a new article on "Jews in Vichy France", move the detail there, and leave only a summary in the main Vichy article.

2. Vichy cooperated with the Nazi campaign on the Jews but did not set up its own genocidal programme. But prompted by Carrel's doctrines rather than the Nazis, it incarcerated many of the mentally handicapped in "hospitals" where about 50,000 were slowly starved to death. (Sorry I can't find the reference of the paper where I saw this).

3. About 600,000 French workers were sent to Germany under the Service du travail obligatoire. The STO should be discussed.

4. The current sentence "With regard to economic contribution to the German economy it is estimated that France provided 42% of the total foreign aid" is bad English and unclear. It certainly wasn't "foreign aid". I think what is meant is "The exploitation of France provided 42% of the economic transfers to Germany from all the occupied countries".

--JamesWim (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the two articles should be merged "German occupation of France during World War II" discusses the overall effect of occupation by German forces on the population, the actions of the occupying force, etc. "Vichy France" discusses the actual Grench government established by Petain and Laval as a result of thye French surrender. These are two different subjects,

Syrenab (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surprising

One would have thought that an article about French collaboration would quickly become the longest article in the entire namespace. It's not as though there isn't enough detailed scholarly work about how vile and ghastly the French are when it comes to turning their tails and running from a straight fight into willing subjugation.  ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.170.116 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Affiche rouge.jpg

Image:Affiche rouge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Area Intended for German Settlement"

I smell bullshit, I skimmed this article and could find no corroborating mention that is sourced. Change it, source it or remove it. Propaganda does not belong in an encyclopaedia. 206.172.193.125 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overseas territories

I request a map of survived overseas territories of Vichy France. Such as French Indochina  A M M A R  06:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Flag of Vichy France

Why is the Vichy Presidential Standard featured on the country's infobox? --GrahamNoyes (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the presidential standard, as there's no reason for it on a country's infobox. GrahamNoyes (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have country infoboxes for governments, anyway? Vichy France was not a country, it was a particular regime which ruled France, which is a country. I know we do this for the various republics, etc., as well, but it's annoying. john k (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Currency

The article does not mention the official currency of Vichy France. I have one of the coins and I could upload a picture of it if needed. Unfortunately, it was in damaged condition when I acquired it.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] end of Vichy govt

The article currently states two conflicting things (maybe more, I didn't read all of it): "The GPRF was recognized as the legitimate government of France by the Allies on October 23, 1944." and "Until August 1945 the Vichy regime was acknowledged as the official government of France by the United States and other countries, including Canada, which was at the same time at war with Germany." (and as an aside, i think new topics belong at the top of talk pages not at the bottom) 68.174.110.168 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)