Talk:Vichy France

First use of the term

I'd like to add something in the #Terminology section about the first use of the term. Paxton's influential "Vichy france : old guard and new order, 1940-1944" dates from 1972 (OCLC 299915249), but there are earlier examples. Searching for any of "Vichy France", "Vichy government", or "Vichy regime" from 1940–1972, I find plenty of examples, but none before 1970. One example is this NYT story, De Gaulle Rallied France in War and Strove to Lead Her to Greatness from 11 Nov 1970. But, I'm not looking for a WP:PRIMARY source; what I'd like, is a reliable book or article, that says something like, "The term Vichy France was first used by historian First Last in their YYYY article Article Name," or similar. If there's nothing that definitive, then "The term first became popular among historians in YYYY."

If the date on this citation is accurate, then honors may go to Leon Poliakov, who was first in any number of things with regard to WWII and Holocaust historiography, and maybe this, too; his article "An Opinion Poll on Anti-Jewish Measures in Vichy France" appeared in Jewish Social Studies, in 1953; but I wonder if this is a retitling of an old article in a modern print or e-format, or if that is really the original title. Then in 1954, there was "Histoire de Vichy 1940-1944" by Robert Aron, which in 1958 English translation became "The Vichy Regime. Comments? Mathglot (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think finding the first occurrence of "Vichy France" or "Vichy regime" in English (and whether it followed, or preceded, a French equivalent) is still worthwhile. The earliest reliable source I can find is this 12 October 1970 NYT article (preceded by a few months by a U. of London Ph.D thesis). @Keith-264 and Rjensen:, any thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

it was a standard term used by scholars in 1945: For example "Vichy France reported 9 generals killed in action and 130 prisoners..." in Alfred Vagts, "Battle and Other Combatant Casualties in the Second World War"' The Journal of Politics August, 1945 DOI =10.2307/2125752 Rjensen (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The term "puppet state"

I have seen this term used in the lede in several previous versions, and it is currently included in the sidebar, but I notice it has largely been excised otherwise. In fact, the fragmentary remains (about Vietnam being a "double puppet") are more confusing than anything, since no previous mention was made of the term "puppet". Evidently it is controversial. Evidently these edits were intentional.

Either this is a subject worthy of discussion, or one worthy of immediate inclusion; I see no reason it should be simply deleted. J. Harrington Inchworm III (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

J. Harrington Inchworm III, I have no objection to the term puppet state, I likely removed it because the lead was absurdly long and it got excised by accident. I have re-added it to the lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

"Puppet" is a discredited point. It was the official position of the postwar French govt that Vichy was a puppet state but historians in recent years have rejected that interpretation says Julian Jackson, "The Republic and Vichy." in The French Republic: History, Values, Debates (2011): 65-73. He states p 65 Paxton showed in 1972 that "Vichy has a political agenda of its own, which it pursued without the slightest pressure from Germany." Rjensen (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to include this, then per WP:LEAD it needs to go in the body of the article. Then if it seems important enough, it can be summarized for the lead. I have moved it out of the lead. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

contradictory opening

The opening of the article seems somewhat contradictory in places. One example which stood out was "Historians have since the 1970s rejected that position by arguing, 'Vichy had a political agenda of its own, which it pursued without the slightest pressure from Germany'" followed by " French soldiers were kept hostage to ensure that Vichy would reduce its military forces and pay a heavy tribute in gold, food and supplies to Germany." which implies heavy indirect pressure. DirkJandeGeer (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I can see why that looks contradictory, and possibly some rewording is needed. The fact is, the lead is just a summary of the body, so by definition uses fewer words, and it's hard to express in just a few words that the political agenda it pursued in some areas had little to do with pressure from Germany, whereas other areas it did. But I see your point, and probably some attempt should be made to reduce what seems like dissonance in the lead. Possibly some explanatory notes could help, without unduly encumbering the running text of the lead itself. Mathglot (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@DirkJandeGeer: Another aspect of this may be different editors adding content to the lead in Wikipedia's voice that summarizes different historical points of view. In fact, historians have taken differing views on the level of responsibility of the Vichy regime and how much of Vichy's actions was due to, or independent of, German influence. This disagreement is perhaps typified by the views of Robert Aron vs. those of Robert Paxton. Paxton's book landed like a bombshell, and caused intense debate. So much so, that it became known as the "Paxtonian revolution" in the historiography of the Vichy period.

As editors, we are required by WP:DUE to represent all majority and minority views, making clear to the reader which is the majority view, if there is one. The Paxtonian view of Vichy's responsibility has become the accepted one, but it is not the only one. The current confusing state of the lead probably comes from this. The solution, imho, is to cover the historiographical debate itself in the lead, laying out the postwar, "accepted" view, the Aron view, and the Paxtonian revolution.

Not many articles on a historical period or a government/regime need to have a discussion about historiographical issues in the lead; normally that would be relegated to a relatively minor part of the body of the article. But in this case, it caused such an uproar, was so significant, and affected the general views on the topic itself, that the historiographical debate should probably be mentioned, possibly as an additional, last paragraph of the lead briefly summarizing the opposing positions, and the move towards the Paxtonian one (which took longer in France than elsewhere, not surprisingly). Inclusion of such a paragraph would go a long way to resolving the confused state of the lead which you identified, with opposing views currently in the lead being identified as belonging to one or the other of the differing views. Note that this debate has many tentacles; see for example Rjensen's comments on the use of the words "puppet state" in the section above, which are an offshoot of the debate.

Thanks for raising the issue, Dirk; I think it should lead to an improvement of the lead, if someone can take it on. I can't right now; are you able to look into it? Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot:Thanks for getting back to me, you raise a lot of good points and I learnt some stuff I didn't know reading your response, I'm no expert on Vichy France, I like reading into history as a hobby and my knowledge of Vichy France is fairly surface-level. That being said, I'd be happy to do more digging into it at some point to try and improve the lead section at some point in the future, but real-life responsibilities as well as another couple of projects I'm researching for Wikipedia mean that it'll probably be a while. My apologies for not replying until you @ed me, my watchlist is in a bit of a state right now, and I was only reading the Vichy France article whilst reading up on random subjects on Wikipedia. As I said I'll look into it at some point in the future, I might try and recruit the help of some users who are more knowledgeable about the subject so I'm not missing something crucial when I do. All the best, DirkJandeGeer (щи) 21:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the end date of Vichy France be 1942 with the completion of Case Anton and not 1944?

After Case Anton, it became something else entirely. Definitely not the same French State; it was Occupied France. Case Anton Occupied France. Also, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, which I am sure t has. If so just ignore it please thanks 2600:4040:558F:2E00:8C67:7944:42DB:FB4A (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Philippe Pétain has an RfC

Philippe Pétain has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)