Talk:Vichy France/Archive 1

Archive 1

Meaning of "promote"

What does Roosevelt continued to cultivate Vichy and promoted General Henri Giraud in place of de Gaulle. mean? Was Roosevelt commander-in-chief of the Free French Army? -- Zoe

I think that would be "promote" in the same sense as "promoting brand identity" or "promoting healthy foods". --Michael 13:17 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

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)

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.

Ian MacFarlane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.13.97 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2004 (UTC)

Anthem

La Marseillaise was forbidden in Vichy France. What did the Vichyssoise sing as a national anthem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.224.96.198 (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Neighbours

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Indochina

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

Ugly formatting of series boxes at top of page

Ugly formatting of series boxes at top of page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.173.49 (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Interesting fact: Petain never had a legitimist past, thing that was rare in the french army where the important leaders often were indeed legitimist. And pierre Laval too has had as strange evolution, as a socialist who then turned to the rightwing. (clems 78) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clems78 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead link in references

(in French) "Non à la biométrie, par [[Giorgio Agamben]]". Le Monde. December 5, 2005. Retrieved 8 May 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); URL–wikilink conflict (help)

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. MrZaius^talk 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

10/08/08 Ref 29 Regarding Australian diplomatic relations with Vichy France is also a dead link http://www.ambafrance-au.org/article.php3%3Fid_article%3D1798+vichy+et+l%27australie&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.71.2 (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

FLAG IS INCORRECT

The Vichy Flag was the French tricolore but with a twin-bladed battelaxe and the Maréchal de France rank stars in the middle of the white band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.157.179 (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. The flag you are thinking of is the Presidential Standard of the Vichy regime, which was previously featured in the infobox, along with the tricolour. While some use the standard as a flag for conveniently distinguishing Vichy from the Third Republic, it has been erroneously been assumed by many to be the flag of Vichy France as a result. In reality, the tricolour remained in use by the Vichy government as the flag. GrahamNoyes (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Colonisation from Germany

In the map there a zone waiting german settlers, where are the backup for this? Rocha 201.6.83.187 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rocha, I am not sure what you mean by "backup" or why you put the question in the plural. The existence of the planned settlement zone in France (as in several other countries bordering Germany to enable the "Grossraumwirtschaft") is well established. For instance a very similar map is found in Michael Curtis' Verdict on Vichy, and the plans are discussed in Marrus et al.'s' Vichy France and the Jews. What are you proposing to do? Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Vichy Regime After Nov. 1942?

The section of the article purporting to discuss the German invasion of Nov. 1942 is confusing. It notes that some Vichy forces resisted, the government protested and that the fleet at Toulon was scuttled. Yet further on we are told that the Vichy government was relocated to Germany in July 1944 in the wake of the fall of Paris to the Allies and that the role of the Milice and collaboraters continued until the bitter end. So, did the Vichy regime under Petain continue to operate under German occupation of its ostensible territory in the manner of Mussolini's rump "Salo Republic"? Please clarify.Tom Cod (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tom Cod, I have clarified the timeline for the dwindling Vichy regime after Case Anton, and separated out the portion about North Africa that was confused with that in France. I hope this helps. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

The August 1945 date was in error and has been corrected. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

This article is, in general, too POV. Hostility to Vichy is apparent. It is also an oversimplification to suggest that Vichy represented reactionary forces. Reactionary elements were influential, certainly, but ultimately Vicy represented the French government and people. They were forced by circumstances to collaborate, as did the socialist government in Denmark, or the "elected" government in American-occupied Iraq for that matter.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice: are the Vichy-era rules still in force?

User:Truth or consequences-2 has added several times, without sourcing it, a sentence claiming the Vichy-era rules regulating condominiums were "not in force anymore", due to the republican Constitutions and to "anti-discriminatory laws". As said on his talk page, he is clearly entering a philosophical debate unto the nature of law. Whatever the case is, I maintain myself to what the sources say, that is:

"Plusieurs règlements de copropriété en vigueur dans des immeubles de la Côte d'Azur comportent toujours des dispositions discriminatoires à l'égard des juifs, inchangées depuis leur mise en place sous le gouvernement de Vichy, révèle Nice-Matin dans son édition de mercredi. in LCI

"Selon Nice-Matin, plusieurs règlements de copropriété en vigueur dans des immeubles de la Côte d'Azur comportent toujours des dispositions discriminatoires à l'égard des juifs. in Le Figaro"

These two articles clearly says the discriminatory rules are still in force (en vigueur). Stating the reverse is factually wrong. Truth or consequences-2 is actually entering into another debate, which is : should these rules be in force? I clearly agree with him that a court would judge them inconstitutional and illegal; the problem is, no one yet has brought the case to court, and no legal rule passed since the Liberation have abrogated all Vichy-era legislation (for obvious convenient reasons, pertaining to the pragmatic or bureaucratic nature of many of this legislation ; the state decided not to erase 4 years of law-making in general). Many of other Vichy-era (non-discriminatory) law is still in force today.

Another point brought by Truth or consequences? is that even though these rules are officially in force, they are not applied, since Jews do, de facto, live in these condominiums. This has nothing to do with the law itself, which is concerned by de jure considerations: Jews do have to sign, like all the other condominium residents alluded to in these articles, declarations where they formally state they are not Jewish. The fact that the factual truth (their Jewishness) contradict their formal declaration has nothing to do with the judicial aspect of the condominium rule. Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit did not state that the rules were not in force anymore. There are two fallacies in Tazmaniacs' argument. First, it is not a matter of agreement that the rules are illegal. Under France's 4th and 5th republican constitutions, and its civil law system, the rules are plainly illegal (as even Tazmaniacs agrees), but futhermore they are irrelevant ("caduque"). Tazmaniacs uses the concept "in force". That is a vague, unsourced concept that suggests that the rules are applied. They are simply not; they cannot be - meaning that anyone can sign that paper and these rules are irrelevant anyway; and they are illegal. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tazmaniacs, this is not a philosophical debate on my part, and my edits are not subjective. They are based on, and explicate, the Nice Matin and follow up articles. For reasons that you agree upon, the rules have no legal standing. In that sense, signing the rules would be a meaningless act. (Incidentally, awareness of the legal system could also explain why some inhabitants may not have bothered to read the rules, as the Nice Matin reporter surmises.) The Nice Matin reporter as cited in Le Figaro also points out that those who knew of the rules considered them obsolete. They are. For that matter, as I pointed out earlier, there is another fallacy in presuming that this item is relevant to the Vichy syndrome, or "views on the nature and legitimacy of Vichy’s collaborationism with Nazi Germany in the implementation of the Holocaust". There is no proof that those who knew of the rules considered them a way to legitimate Vichy-era collaboration, and indeed the Le Figaro article points to an altogether different explanation, which is the one I explicated. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can sign any promise. These rules, which are still "in force" (en vigueur as sourced by the articles), request of condominium residents to sign a declaration stating they are not Jews. Since these rules are still "in force", residents do sign this declaration. Again, the fact that they may sign it whilst being Jew is irrelevant ; so is the fact that if a condominium owner expelled them on the grounds that they had made a false statement, he would be condemned by French courts as the rules should have been modified. The problem is: they haven't ! This is a philosophical debate on your part, claiming these condominium rules are not legitimate under current law; sure, but no court, as yet, as judged so, and until official declaration removing these rules, they are still "en vigueur" - as the sources say. Tazmaniacs (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"En vigueur" remains in force (in the article)... I note, though, that neither the Huma nor the Fig article state that people actually sign the declaration. More often than not, a new tenant may not receive the detailed rules until after having signed the lease. This would explain, for instance, that several Jewish families interviewed by Le Figaro declared "not being aware" of the rules in their buildings. Presumably, the same would apply to foreigners, of which quite a few also live in Nice. The facts described in the sources are such that the rules are empty letter. I believe we agree on this. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I give in, but hardly agree with you and can't actually believe that you claim the articles say the opposite that really do. If the rulings are still "en vigueur", this mean that people have to sign this declaration. The fact that they do not read it closely is not at all surprising. We are used not reading whole contracts! I leave this point for anyone else who will bother reading these articles in French, I'm afraid we can't hope reaching an agreement on the interpretation of these newspapers articles. Tazmaniacs (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

In one key area, Laval surpassed the Nazis' expectations. French authorities did not want to deal with orphaned/"abandoned" children left by Jewish deportees, so they offered them up. Around 11 thousand Jewish children were deported and killed. On the French role vs the collaboration of other countries see Julian Jackson, chp. 15: Vichy and the Jews.ClioFR (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The fate of Vichy Officials

Know Marshell Petain was Imprisoined and Prime Mintser of Vichy Goverment executed.But were thge other memebrs lkareg an small of the Vichy French goverment,Police etc. Prosicuted as well after the war? Merci',Thank You!(datedAMMornTuesSept.1,200921stCent.ByDr.EdsonAnre'JohnsonD..ULC"X")ANDREMOI (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Another question were any Vichy officials allowed in post war French goverment?

Were any former Vichy French Officals allowed in Post war French goverments? (DatedAMMorn,Wed,Sept2,200921stcent"X"ByDr.EdsonAndre'JohnsonD.D.ULc.)ANDREMOI (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lots and lots of former Vichy officials continued their involvement in French government and politics. See, for instance, François Mitterrand, Maurice Papon, René Bousquet. john k (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Vichy and the Ancient Regime

Vichy meant the re-establishing of the French Ancient Regime, the pre-Revolutionary Monarchist and Catholic France which was destroyed by the Atheist French Revolution.--79.146.21.144 (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A republican monarchy of course.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Errors

Please unlock so that the numerous misspellings can be corrected, also peculiar words masquerading as English such as 'conflictual' (should be 'conflicting'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.10.43 (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Another error is the reference to Eichmann's department with is not RSHA IV-D but RSHA Referat IV B4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJWittenberg (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The French "Statut des Juifs" never implemented the Yellow star (http://pagesperso-orange.fr/d-d.natanson/statut1.htm if you wan't to check). The measure was a German one, in May 1942. IT was enforced only in the occupied zone and wasn't a Vichy law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnificent7 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Internal Strife

I find much of this section to be largely irrelevant to the actual article and it includes in article lists (which i know wikipedia doesn't for some reason). I was wondering what others think of it.--99.141.194.35 (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Date of end of official diplomatic recognition of the Vichy regime by the Allies

First sentence of 5th paragraph of the Overview section (my underlining):

"Until 23 October 1944 the Vichy regime was acknowledged as the official government of France by the United States and other countries, including Canada, which were at the same time at war with Germany."

Having been reverted [2] for removing "Until 23 October 1944", date given as the end of the acknowledgment of the Vichy regime as the "*official* government of France" by the Allies, I am asking for a supporting reference.

23 October 1944 is the date when the Allies officially recognised General Charles de Gaulle's provisional government.

Could someone give proof that the Vichy regime was still recognised in any official manner after 20 August 1944, the day when Maréchal Pétain was forcibly taken out of France under military escort by the Germans & brought to Sigmaringen?

I also would like to know how many ambassadors on the side of the Allies flooded to Vichy after 6 June 1944, with messages of sympathy.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

Heard that the song refering to Marshall Petain in praise was considerd the "official" anthem of Vichy ,France was this true?DRDANCEMOI (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a song, not an official anthem. The official anthem remained "La Marseillaise", but it was forbidden to sing it, as it was forbidden to fly the French flag. --Frania W. (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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) Hallo ich schreibe aus Deutschland,ich weiß nicht ob es geht.Ich würde mich sehr freuen wenn ich Proben direckt aus Frankreich bekomme.Merci im voraus.Adr. Iris Langer Hedwigstrasse 79,,46537 Dinslaken Germanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.146.201 (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The map show that Indochina was a "Vichy possessions lost relatively early". But Indochina was occuped by Japan beetwen 1940 and 1945. It would more just to put Indochina in :"Teal: De jure part of French State, Axis occupied" or to create a new color and say : "Japanese Occupation of French Indochina". (Invasion of French Indochina) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.157.219 (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

The map show that Indochina was a "Vichy possessions lost relatively early". But Indochina was occuped by Japan beetwen 1940 and 1945. It would more just to put Indochina in :"Teal: De jure part of French State, Axis occupied" or to create a new color and say : "Japanese Occupation of French Indochina". (Invasion of French Indochina) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.157.219 (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel?

I reverted the removal of Israel from the list of constituent territories on a technicality (unexplained deletion), but an expert should confirm that it should remain present, thanks. AV3000 (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Israle was a british mandate territory. Whilst some of israles current possetions were part of the nFrench mandate the vast bulk of the coun try was notSlatersteven (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that list necessary?

• It shows more territories than in French Third Republic, which it immediately followed.
• Such a list is inexistent at French Fourth Republic & French Fifth Republic.
• It is probably incomplete:
  • http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1vItf-qSz5cJ:fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_colonies_fran%C3%A7aises+colonies+fran%C3%A7aises+en+asie&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

--Frania W. (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cameroun and French Equatorial Africa (except for Gabon) joined the Free French after the surrender, and were not Vichy. So the list seems iff at best.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Weird, incomplete, and misleading in some cases as some territories under French at the time are listed with post WWII name, such as... Israël, which gives the impression that Israël used to be a French colony, territory or protectorate.

--Frania W. (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

with the exception of terrtory captured after 1948 and 1967 (which is not recognised as part of Israle anyway) the area that makes up Israle was actualy the British Mandate of plaestine.

I know. That's why it looks weird to me to see the name "Israel" as a part of the French colonial empire under the Vichy government! Does the article really need such a list? Would not it be better to have a section dealing with France's colonies, territories & former departments, such as Algeria & what are now called the DOM TOM, in the context of WWII?

--Frania W. (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say no it does not really need this list. It might have some slight value, but given its strange choice of content it might be better to remove it altogether.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I think because with errors it becomes valueless and even laughable. Instead, a section with the role played by governors & military within colonies & territories under the protectorate of France could be developed. Such an article may even exist already.

--Frania W. (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Including Israel here seems like an attempt to insert POV about the Arab-Israeli conflict into an article that has nothing to do with that. Vichy France controlled the Golan Heights. Israel occupies the Golan, and has announced their annexation, but every country in the world besides Israel considers them to be part of Syria. There is no chance of that changing in the immediate future. None of the rest of Israel was ever under French control. Including Israel as French makes absolutely no sense - it is actively misleading, and part of a dispute which has nothing to do with this article. For articles having nothing to do with this conflict, we should stick with the internationally recognized borders. john k (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not remove the list? --Frania W. (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that hte list has no realo function. Also can some one check the new source about China being a French possetion. It seems to ba an articel about Immunology. Alternativly can the Edd who inserted this please provide the quote that supports the inclusion of China as a French possetion please (especialy as it seems to be discsing the 1950's onwards.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the list is pretty silly, and I've removed it. That being said, there's levels of silliness, and including China and Israel was particularly ridiculous. john k (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup John K.! Now we can turn to more serious business. --Frania W. (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Cynthia" (Amy Elizabeth Thorpe)

Re "See also": It is disconcerting to see a cock-and-bull story such as William Stevenson's about "Cynthia" (Amy Elizabeth Thorpe) and her supposed theft of Enigma secrets through an amorous aide of Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck (in Stevenson's A Man Called Intrepid, 1976) once more being offered to the public as bona-fide history, over a quarter-century after historian Richard Woytak demonstrated its falsehood—and that of other fabrications presented by F.W. Winterbotham, Anthony Cave Brown and F.H. Hinsley—in his introduction to Marian Rejewski's "Remarks on Appendix 1 to British Intelligence in the Second World War by F.H. Hinsley," published in Cryptologia, vol. 6, no. 1 (January 1982).

Historical fiction such as this should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Unless verification can be provided for other of the vague, unsubstantiated assertions that are made in the "Amy Elizabeth Thorpe" article and in Stevenson's discredited book, on which that article is largely based, the "Amy Elizabeth Thorpe" article should be deleted in its entirety. Nihil novi (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but a man called initrepid may be bad history (I shall let others decide) but its not historical fiction, it was published as fact. Now I would like to see some source that says this lady was invoilved in some way with vicey france.Slatersteven (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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

"Vichy willfully collaborated with Nazi Germany, but nothing forced it to do so. It is the only country in Europe that did that." Well thats not true. What about Finland ?Eregli bob (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ERROR

At the picture of Vichy France's posessions, there isn't any red! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.130.97.203 (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

look veeeeeeeeeeeery closely at india. you can see a small red dot--67.67.222.59 (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Another article with an overlong introduction

most of which should be transferred to appropriate sections of the main text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.37.48 (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Legitimacy

An overwhelming majority of parliamentarians granted plenary powers to Petain. He did not have a "dubious legitimacy". Even if the legality of the vote may be challenged, he had greater legitimacy than De Gaulle, whom no one had voted for- he was just a wannabe military ruler! The majority of votes were in Petain's favour. He would have been appointed even if those who had not voted were all counted as votes against him. And since when has a vote of parliament been held invalid because some MP's are absent? The vote was valid, and the persecution of the majority of parliamentarians after the war was an injustice and an exercise in revenge.

The real issue with legitimacy is whether congress had the legal power to delegate fulllegal powers to one person. The answer to that hasn't even been discussed in this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Collaborated vs allied

The first sentence saying Vichy allied with the Axis seems wrong to me. Did Vichy France go to war against the Allies? I don't think so. So I changed "allied" to "collaborated". "For industrial purposes" later in that sentence seemed vague or incorrect so I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marfinan (talk • contribs) 13:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Brevet General Charles de Gaulle

He is always known as General Charles de Gaulle; never as Brevet General Charles de Gaulle. If whoever it is at 125.26.161.31 finds it absolutely necessary to make the point that he was not a full general, it would be better to create a footnote.Mikeo1938 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Overemphasis on ethnocentic "victim" cosmology

There are overall 24 chunky paragraphs on the Jewish issue, this gives the article a very questionable bias. Compare the article to the one on the Soviet Union, where tens of millions of Christians were murdered by the regime. More Christians were murdered before breakfast on an average day in the Soviet Union (in some cases, especially early on, at the hand of Jewish commissars) than died throughout the entire duration of Vichy France. Why the double standard? I propose these 24 ethnocentric vanity paragraphs be whittled down to two, which present in a concise manner, just the basic and most essential aspects. Rí Lughaid (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ri, you've been warned. This is a B class article, the result of lots of careful work and pretty good sourcing throughout. What you are suggesting looks a lot like bad faith POV pushing, rather than a normal editorial dispute. Wikipedia is not the place to advance fringe theories of history or anything else. Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

Six years later, the article is still sorely lacking in this respect. –Saruwine (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Gold standard?

It isn't clear to me from the main article whether Vichy France had a gold standard. Was there some kind of a gold standard in place? How were suits in equity resolved when there were references to gold? Was gold automatically forfeited to German authorities when it was found? This is something I am wondering about. Was it against the law to own gold? The main article could be improved if this were made explicit somehow. 216.99.198.52 (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

France went off the gold standard in 1936. see By: Mouré, Kenneth. Gold Standard Illusion: France, the Bank of France & the International Gold Standard, 1914-1939 2002. During the war Germany forced France to give it all the gold that had been stored in Paris by Belgium and Poland. Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very helpful. 216.99.201.249 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Status

"Axis collaborator state"? What is that? A state populated by Axis collaborators? Seems like some sort of an unfortunate compromise. I'd leave the parameter empty. -- Director (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There's really no such designation as a "collaborator state". What is a "collaborator state"? This kinda looks like POV. -- Director (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oceania

The paragraph on Oceania is a duplication, since the French Settlements in Oceania (Etablissements Francais de l'Oceanie) is synonymous with French Polynesia. In fact since the name of the territory was only changed to French Polynesia in 1957, the former designation would be the correct one during WW2. But there should only be one paragraph for this territory. Ptilinopus (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we complete the dates that individual parts of the French colonial holdings changed sides?

Some French colonies, protectorates and mandates changed sides when they were invaded by Gaulist forces (Cameroun, French Equatorial Africa, Ste. Pierre et Miquelon, etc.), some when they were invaded by English or American forces (Syria, Madagascar, Morocco), Indo-China was invaded by the Japanese (although the Vichy French administration remained in place until March 1945), and some changed sides when the unoccupied section of metropolitan France was occupied by the Germans following the American invasion of French North Africa (French Somaliland, French West Africa, Martinique, etc.).

Can someone who is a specialist in this area draw up a list that includes the dates on which each colonial entity or protectorate changed sides?

For instance: French India? French Polynesia? New Caledonia? Reunion? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

I don't think a simple list of dates would do justice to the question, given the complications in some cases. But, I have added a sub-section on Oceania that includes information on French Polynesia and New Caledonia, in particular.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The above seems to assume that "Oceania" in the French context included New Caledonia. It did not. Etablissements Francais de l'Oceanie is the designation for what was renamed French Polynesia in 1957. New Caledonia with its dependency Wallis and Futuna was a separate colonial entity, and was never part of E.F.d'O. Ptilinopus (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:France during World War II

It's important to sort out the mess that are the WWII articles.

All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

what are the complaints?? Rjensen (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Mainly about Military history of France in World War II, that it is rather too large and unwieldy, yet is really bare-bones with minimal or empty sections. ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

yes that is a problem. But it is a work in progress and I am impressed by how much it does cover. Rjensen (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes

I just corrected a few mistakes in the intro and the infobox. It basically gave the wrong impression that Vichy was only in existence in Southern France (the "zone libre") and disappeared after the invasion of Southern France by the Germans. Wrong on both counts : Vichy was always the nominal government on 100% of French territory, including occupied Northen France in 1940-42 : after Case Anton, it was still in existence, even though its actual power was greatly reduced and its credibility badly damaged. There is no clear, exact date for the end of Vichy (one might consider that it ended when Pétain and his ministers were evacuated by the Germans) but basically it remained in existence right until D-Day. Its successor was not the German military administration in 1942, but the Provisional Government of the French Republic in 1944.

I don't have the time to look at the rest of the article, but it should also reflect these basic facts. English is not my first language, so I may have made some grammatical mistakes : feel free to correct me if necessary.

I also corrected a smaller mistake : de Gaulle did not proclaim the Provisional Government of the French Republic after the Allied landing in Normandy, but just before. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Vichy Functionaries

I hope you can use this:

Valentin did not go to France and join de Gaulle. He voted full powers to Pétain, and subsequently served the Vichy government faithfully, notably as an official in the Légion Française des Combattants, before he publicly denounced Leval and joined the Free French in Algeria.

Hesitation about which side to join in 1940 was epitomized in the persion of Jean Borotra, a well-known tennis player. In 1940 he was, at first, convinced that his duty required him to continue the fight against the Germans. he did not, however, want to leave for London without having obtained appropriate authorization from his military superiors. Since he had been taken prisoner by the Germans, Borotra first asked his colonel's permission to escape. He then cycled to the Gironde in order to ask for his demobilization papers from the Ministry of Defence. On 27 June, he obtained the personal authorization of General Weygand to leave the French army and, having been demobilized on 1 July, he finally obtained the approval of Paul Baudouin, the Minister of Foreicn Affairs, in Clermont-Ferrand on 2 July. However, shortly after this, the British sank the fleet at Mers-el-Kebir and Borotra changed his mind about going to London. He subsequently became Vichy Minister for Sport before joining the Maquis in 1943.

All sorts of incongrous people got jobs lower down in the Vichy regime. Georges Pelorson had spent his early life preparing for the horrifically competitive examinations that governed entry into the École Normale Supérieure. In pre-war Paris, he had befreanded James Joyce and Samuel Beckett. For two years he taught at Trinity College Dublin, where he came to dispise the clericalism of the Irish Free State. This bespectacled intillectual was given a job in Vichy's youth organization, responsible for promoting the virtues of fresh air and vigorous physical exercise. The novelist Paul Morand, a famous libertine, wangled himself a job as president of the Commission for Film Censorship – this meant that he was obliged to ban a film for which he had written the script.

It was that last sentence that really got me to insert all of this.
☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Too long!

This article meanders all over the place - e.g. on French Polynesia - and is way, way too long. Some of it should be split off into separate articles. Norvo (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Status

Simplified the status entry per following rationale:

• "German-aligned neutral state" is irrelevant to the entry: a state's "alignment" does not pertain to its status; there were more than a few "German-aligned" neutral states.
• "Puppet government in northern France 1940-42" is contradictory to the statement that this was a neutral government in that period. It was the same exact government in both zones 1940-42 (as well as afterwards, of course).

-- Director (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Copy Editing Fix

I fixed several common errors in the first paragraph. Karakopcso (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing

.

Skimmed through the article and found some isssues on clarity and grammar, so will change that. I will also add further information to the topic in time. WafflePuppy (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing FR-EN translation

I made minor changes to the French to English translation of some parts of the sub-section: "French Jews vs. foreign Jews": myth or reality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdbeerkuchen100 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Vichy France and French West Africa

I was shocked to find that this page had little to no mention of the interaction between Vichy France and French West Africa. Vichy France had the difficult task of explaining to their colonial populations that although they had been defeated and occupied by another European power, it was still powerful enough to maintain power and autonomy over French West Africa. Vichy France utilized propaganda in order to maintain its power and authority in French West Africa. The new government had to justify the Armistice to the French public and colonial populations and prove that it was strong enough to maintain its authority.

The Vichy regime wasted no time in dealing with the issue of propaganda in the colonies. Whereas previously these services had conveyed the information from the colonies to France, it was time that propaganda emanated from France and was sent to its colonies. I think propaganda is an important part of Vichy France's history. It helped subdue potential problems and actively recruited the large military force that was drawn from French West Africa. While I am really only familiar with propaganda in French West Africa, I am sure that similar effects occurred in other French colonies.

User:Olafandfriends 10:25, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)

References

edited by Mathglot (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC) to keep references local to this section

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vichy France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060714215544/http://www.aloufok.net:80/article.php3?id_article=551 to http://www.aloufok.net/article.php3?id_article=551

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

POV

This article is openly POV and hostile to the Vichy French government. There are many examples, for instance the introduction stating that "Marshal Pétain and his supporters signed the Second Armistice at Compiègne on 22 June 1940 with Germany". It was the lawfully appointed Prime Minister of France and his ministry who signed the armistice, not a military officer and his "supporters".Royalcourtier (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The POV rules to not apply to historical personages, they apply to historians. A POV problem exists if only one side of a historical controversy is presented. To make the case a critic has to present the missing alternative RS. Petain did NOT sign it but his appointees did so there is no POV issue in this case. Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree this article is POV. I'm not sure if one person is doing it, but some parts read like an opinionated op-ed than an encyclopedia article. I've removed the POV in the areas where I've seen it. Other than that, this is a great article. Keep the good work up!--96.58.192.158 (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What about Saint Martin?

This article does not show the status of Saint-Martin, a French territory in the Caribbean. Neither does the map. (Saint-Martin is a different island than Martinique.) DrZygote214 (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Vichy France

I am new in Wiki and old. I am requesting your kind help in putting "French Protectorate of Morocco" in correct template. For some reasons I was successful in doing so for the rest of my modifications.

Thank you for your kind collaboration. Have a wonderful week-end! Henia Perlman (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The term "Vichy France" was dreamt up sometime in the 1970s!

"Vichy France" is actually a cover-name for what should of rightly be called 'Nazi France' http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27479-Vichy-France-PC-branding-wording-for-Nazi-France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.58.27 (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice conspiracy theory, but the plethora of publications using the term published before 1960 makes the claim rather hard to take seriously.

"Vichy France" is not so much a "cover name" as you say, but mostly just a convenience term to avoid confusion. The official name is the État français or "French State" in English. This is such a generic term, that people might not know what you mean by it. This is true even in French, where if you go to État français you will find a French disambig page, and you can see there that it can mean either the Vichy government, or the current Fifth Republic. "Vichy France" has lots of synonyms; because of its the only expressions you don't hear for it are "French Republic" and just plain "France".

Here are some headlines from the period, from the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times:

• "VichyRegime Leader Quits: Baudouin Resigns, but Reports of Reorganization of Cabinet Unconfirmed". Los Angeles Times. Jan 4, 1941. ISSN 0458-3035. Marshal Philippe Petain was said authoritatively tonight to be still studying a reorganization of his government after a day of confusing and contradictory.
• Baldwin, Hanson W (March 19, 1943). "Giraud Spurns Vichy Regime: Charges Nazi Rule and Vows Greater Liberty in Africa". Los Angeles Times. Algiers. ISSN 0458-3035.
• "Vichy Regime Retires 47 Jewish Employees :Judges, Magistrates, and Councillors Affected Under New Law". New York Times. New York.
• "Rift Appears in New Accord of Nazis and Vichy Regime". New York Times. New York. Nov 15, 1940.
• "Education Modified by Petain's Regime : Vichy Combats Leftist Tendencies of the Normal Schools". New York Times. New York. September 23, 1940.

Finally, regardless of the "truth" of how Nazi-aligned Vichy France was or wasn't, a core principle of Wikipedia is verifiability and if you read the first paragraph there you will see that it's not about what editors believe the truth of the matter is, but rather what reliable sources report, and in proportion to their numbers or weight, if there's a disagreement. What this means is, that in order to rename this article to "Nazi France" you would have to find that the majority of reliable sources talking about it refer to it that way, rather than the way they do in these examples. I think you'll agree that that's a very tall order.

Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No no no, newspaper headlines always use topographic headings and whatnot like that. It is no proof that the term "Vichy France" was in widespread use like one would think nowadays. Also, bear in mind that ones can also earth up newspaper headlines and so forth which talk of 'Nazi France' in meaning for "Vichy France" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.248.118 (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT. And pretty much irrelevant. It is the term by which major English language common reader and academic sources have referred to it for far longer than it takes to establish usage as more than a fad. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been researching some things from WWII and I am a Publisher's Extra Newspapers.com paid subscriber and I can say with absolute certainty that they were calling it Vichy. Hell, haven't you ever even seen Casablanca? Good golly I nearly spit my sandwich all over my computer as I read this. I laughed hysterically at such nonsense. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 19:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Vichy France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722112044/http://www.jewishtraces.org/recherche.php to http://www.jewishtraces.org/recherche.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218180717/http://ong-comite-liaison.unesco.org/ongpho/acti/3/2/document/8/pdfen.pdf to http://ong-comite-liaison.unesco.org/ongpho/acti/3/2/document/8/pdfen.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316220837/http://www.amnistia.net/news/enquetes/negauniv/carrel/carrel.htm to http://www.amnistia.net/news/enquetes/negauniv/carrel/carrel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413170546/http://elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/interventions/discours_et_declarations/1995/juillet/allocution_de_m_jacques_chirac_president_de_la_republique_prononcee_lors_des_ceremonies_commemorant_la_grande_rafle_des_16_et_17_juillet_1942-paris.2503.html to http://elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/interventions/discours_et_declarations/1995/juillet/allocution_de_m_jacques_chirac_president_de_la_republique_prononcee_lors_des_ceremonies_commemorant_la_grande_rafle_des_16_et_17_juillet_1942-paris.2503.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131001080355/http://www.ldh-toulon.net/spip.php?article285 to http://www.ldh-toulon.net/spip.php?article285

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

On the annexation of Luxemburg

although it [the Reich] later did annex Luxembourg

According to my information, that is not correct and the status of Luxemburg was and remained the same as that of Alsace-Lorraine, viz., annexed in all but name, but not in name. The only actual annexation in the West was Eupen-Malmedy - as far as I know.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:2E:9358:EF5B:4D84 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

French Navy

"The occupation also presented certain advantages, such as keeping the French Navy and French colonial empire under French control, and avoiding full occupation of the country by Germany" Doesn't seem to have a source. The last makes sense, the second is arguable, but the first makes no sense at all: there was nothing to stop the French navy sailing to ports beyond German reach. David Bofinger (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As for the point about the French Navy, there was one thing to prevent them from sailing to ports beyond German reach. The French honor.

Germany had signed an armistice with Germany, part of that agreement was that the French fleet would remain under French control, and Germany wouldn’t try to repossess it. Sailing the ships to for example an Allied port would be a blatant violation of that agreement and of French honor.

If Germany wanted the French fleet, they could have made the surrender of the French fleet into German hands part of the armistice. Just like the allied had following WW I.

192.38.140.42 (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

What is the source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Le Complot Juif contre L’Europe!.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Étienne Léandri

Étienne_Léandri is listed as a collaborator on this page but not in his article. Is there a source for this? Hack (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Rugby League

Vichy France expropriated the assets of French Rugby League clubs - these were not subsequently returned after the war. See Rugby League in France, and this piece from The Independent [French Rugby's Shameful Secret]. I feel someone who knows a little more about the game than I do could helpfully insert a short paragraph. Thomas Peardew (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You say "Vichy France expropriated the assets of French Rugby League clubs - these were not subsequently returned after the war." But Vichy France did not exist after the war, so was not able to own or retiurn any assets. Where were they? 2.31.166.187 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Alignment with the Nazis

Maybe it seems too obvious, but the lead sentence should note that the Vichy were aligned with Hitler and the Nazis. Some people probably don't know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.236.236.185 (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

World War II in lead changed to point to France during World War II

When I made this change, I hadn't looked closely at France during World War II.

This should have been a slam dunk, but the above page is terrible, being entirely a list with not even a lead paragraph, until I quickly bodged a few sentences in.

I'm hoping if anyone objects to this change here, they will direct their energy to fixing the France during World War II page, rather than routed around the problem by reverting my change here. — MaxEnt 17:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to refine my hasty apologia once I discovered the mess above, my position is that if France during World War II is not suitable as a link target as I have used it here, the conversation should move to whether we should RfD France during World War II and put it out of its present misery. :Personally, I'm strongly in favour of fixing the page instead, because WWII is almost an encyclopedia in and of itself. Merely linking directly there almost amounts to: "let me Google that for you, in case you've never heard of it". Not that there's anything wrong this that, if the person concerned has six months of self-isolation to linger there until the master topic is fully absorbed. France in WWII is a large enough meal all by itself, so why not make it serve this purpose in a good way? — MaxEnt 18:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@MaxEnt:, given the current state of that article, I think it's still not a good target for that link. But there's another reason, namely, the WP:POLA principle: if you want to link to "France during World War II" then the anchor should say something like that, or at least, not mislead. I disagree with your edit summary "nobody needs the direct link to WWII"; I think that's a fine link. However if you object to it, that argues for unlinking the phrase entirely, not for providing a surprising link. I've unlinked it for now, pending further discussion. (I would not object to an editor restoring the World War II link.)

A couple of other things: conversations about whether to delete the article, should take place at its Talk page, not here; you could link to it from here. Regarding "putting it out of its misery," the fact that an article is in terrible shape, is not a valid criterion for deleting it. "France during World War II" is a highly notable topic, and there is zero chance that an Rfd would succeed, so save your energy for improving the article, or ignoring it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Foreign recognition

OK, so did the UK "recognised by the United Kingdom"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Mind-reading Slatersteven: no, the UK did not recognise Vichy, but the United States did. Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No a request to explain why we said it did.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It didn't, obviously; do we say it did? Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes we did, hence why I asked.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

450 policemen and gendarmes

This comes from Chirac's address of 16 July 1942 1995. The correct figure of "450" has been misquoted as "4500 policemen and gendarmes" in this article since since revision 791010861 of 5:08, July 17, 2017, where it is attributed to a copy of History of the Jews in France. That article had the same error, going back to 2013, now fixed. Same thing, at François Mitterrand. In all cases, the quote is referenced, with the source(s) quoting the correct figure, but the inaccurate figure survived till now, nevertheless.

I'm sure this was originally just a typo or sticky '0' key back in 2013, but as an ironic proof of Wikipedia's reach, the web search "4500 policemen and gendarmes" -site:wikipedia.org now returns 40 results with the incorrect value, various blogs, wikis, and other sources obviously having copied from Wikipedia, while a search with the correct figure returns only 27 hits. So, we have a heavy responsibility; our typos get enshrined, even by some normally reliable sources who must've had a bad day in the fact-checking department. So, keep a sharp eye out, Wikipedia editors, and don't forget to wear your big, V for Verifiability hat, while you're editing. Mathglot (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't "This comes from Chirac's address of 16 July 1942" be 1995? ;O) Rogue finger a-go-go. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Lol! There must be a word for this, or if not, there oughta be... Mathglot (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

References