Vichy France...why?
December 2, 2008 9:54 PM Subscribe
What was the deal with Vichy France? I know pretty well the what, when, where, how and who...but why? When the Nazis conquered other countries, I assume they just absorbed them into the Reich -- but in France's case, they chose to install a puppet government instead. How come? And can we believe Casablanca? Did the Vichy authorities really have enough autonomy to prevent Major Strasser from simply seizing Victor Laszlo and dragging him off to a concentration camp? If so, what kind of puppet government do you call that?
You can't judge from Casablanca. It contains one major whopper: the letters of transit were supposedly signed by De Gaulle and thus couldn't be questioned.
But at the time De Gaulle was in exile in the UK and there was a price on his head. His signature wouldn't have meant anything.
They weren't trying to be historically accurate; they were trying to tell a love story.
posted by Class Goat at 10:07 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
But at the time De Gaulle was in exile in the UK and there was a price on his head. His signature wouldn't have meant anything.
They weren't trying to be historically accurate; they were trying to tell a love story.
posted by Class Goat at 10:07 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wikipedia has a very thorough article on Vichy France, and Class Goat's point is mentioned in the errors and inaccuracies section of the article about Casablanca.
posted by amyms at 10:10 PM on December 2, 2008
posted by amyms at 10:10 PM on December 2, 2008
When the Nazis conquered other countries, I assume they just absorbed them into the Reich
Not so. Norway had a puppet government too; Denmark had a slightly odd status, the Netherlands was under a civilian governor; northern France (de facto) and Belgium was under military rule. The eastern conquests also varied in status: some were run by local Nazis with heavy leaning from Berlin. The boundaries of the Großdeutsches Reich may have expanded to cover areas designed to be ethnically cleansed and repopulated, but the basic territory was defined by what was considered ethnically and/or historically German.
France is big. It has two coasts -- or rather, it had three with the North African territories. Hitler was interested in the northern coast for a potential invasion of Britain. And as recent history suggests, occupations take more bodies on the ground than invasions.
Vichy France is still a taboo subject: it took ten years for The Sorrow and the Pity to appear on French television. As for Victor Laszlo, he'd have been arrested on sight; Casablanca is not the place to get your history.
posted by holgate at 10:31 PM on December 2, 2008
Not so. Norway had a puppet government too; Denmark had a slightly odd status, the Netherlands was under a civilian governor; northern France (de facto) and Belgium was under military rule. The eastern conquests also varied in status: some were run by local Nazis with heavy leaning from Berlin. The boundaries of the Großdeutsches Reich may have expanded to cover areas designed to be ethnically cleansed and repopulated, but the basic territory was defined by what was considered ethnically and/or historically German.
France is big. It has two coasts -- or rather, it had three with the North African territories. Hitler was interested in the northern coast for a potential invasion of Britain. And as recent history suggests, occupations take more bodies on the ground than invasions.
Vichy France is still a taboo subject: it took ten years for The Sorrow and the Pity to appear on French television. As for Victor Laszlo, he'd have been arrested on sight; Casablanca is not the place to get your history.
posted by holgate at 10:31 PM on December 2, 2008
And can we believe Casablanca?
Yes, we can believe Casablanca. In fact, it is essential to the future of America that we believe Casablanca.
But not when it comes to WWII history, no. As others have said, the Nazis took a very case-by-case approach to managing their conquered territories. They were very... practical.
posted by rokusan at 10:34 PM on December 2, 2008 [4 favorites]
Yes, we can believe Casablanca. In fact, it is essential to the future of America that we believe Casablanca.
But not when it comes to WWII history, no. As others have said, the Nazis took a very case-by-case approach to managing their conquered territories. They were very... practical.
posted by rokusan at 10:34 PM on December 2, 2008 [4 favorites]
I think one thing to keep in mind is that the Vichy setup was supposed to be an interim wartime thing, and that when it was established it appeared to everyone that the war was over, or close to it -- the entry of Stalin and Roosevelt was still a year away, and a credible Anglo-US threat to the Wehrmacht (already up to its ass in alligators on the Ost Front) TWO years away.
Hitler had a lot on his plate in mid-1940 and being the chivalrous sort assumedly felt a collaborationist government ruled under the armistice was good enough going forward.
posted by troy at 11:20 PM on December 2, 2008
Hitler had a lot on his plate in mid-1940 and being the chivalrous sort assumedly felt a collaborationist government ruled under the armistice was good enough going forward.
posted by troy at 11:20 PM on December 2, 2008
Best answer: I recommend La Vie en Bleu, a very interesting 20th Century history of France.
Vichy is complex. One view of Vichy, for example, was that it wasn't initially a puppet government per se; rather, it was a coup by the French right that used the invasion by Germany to come to power. Certainly the priorities of the Vichy government were more about killing and imprisoning leftists and some centrists, and rolling back many of the rules of the Republic, rolling back the secular state and so on, than about re-establishing an independent France.
The Nazis themselves were surprised how enthusiastic the Vichy regime was in matters such as wiping out unions, rounding up Jews, and so on. de Gaulle was tried as a traitor in absentia, although elements of the government displaced by Petain had entrusted him with as much of the gold reserve as they could get ahold of when he exited the country.
It's worth mentioning that there were a number of attempted right-wing coups in France in the 30s, many involving people who would become heavily involved in the Vichy regime, and many of whom would enter far-right French politics after the war - again, it's worth noting that the last French election was the first one where none of the presidential candidates from the main parties didn't have (or claim) some background in WW II, either in the resistence (the mainstream right and left wing parties) or Vichy involvement (Le Pen)[1]. Some industrialists were very keen on the regime, not least as a way of getting rid of unions and socialists.
Similarly, the Church was not unenthusiastic about the Vichy regime, because, much like facist regimes across Europe, it gave Catholicism a big push - especially important in France, where areas like education had been heavily secularised. The Church sheltered a number of Vichy officials wanted for wartime atrocities well into the 70s and 80s.
Note, also, that Franco-American relations during WW II were pretty messy. The US hated de Gaulle because of his independent line and continually tried to supplant him with more pliant French leaders, for example.
So to amble back to your question, from one point of view, Vichy was a French Fascist regime that enjoyed considerable support from some sections of French society. Why would the Nazis want to displace it? Many of the Vichy believed what the Nazis believed, or at least what other fascists like Franco and Mussolini did.
[1] Actually, perhaps it was the election before that. I'm too lazy to wander downstairs and check.
posted by rodgerd at 11:32 PM on December 2, 2008 [7 favorites]
Vichy is complex. One view of Vichy, for example, was that it wasn't initially a puppet government per se; rather, it was a coup by the French right that used the invasion by Germany to come to power. Certainly the priorities of the Vichy government were more about killing and imprisoning leftists and some centrists, and rolling back many of the rules of the Republic, rolling back the secular state and so on, than about re-establishing an independent France.
The Nazis themselves were surprised how enthusiastic the Vichy regime was in matters such as wiping out unions, rounding up Jews, and so on. de Gaulle was tried as a traitor in absentia, although elements of the government displaced by Petain had entrusted him with as much of the gold reserve as they could get ahold of when he exited the country.
It's worth mentioning that there were a number of attempted right-wing coups in France in the 30s, many involving people who would become heavily involved in the Vichy regime, and many of whom would enter far-right French politics after the war - again, it's worth noting that the last French election was the first one where none of the presidential candidates from the main parties didn't have (or claim) some background in WW II, either in the resistence (the mainstream right and left wing parties) or Vichy involvement (Le Pen)[1]. Some industrialists were very keen on the regime, not least as a way of getting rid of unions and socialists.
Similarly, the Church was not unenthusiastic about the Vichy regime, because, much like facist regimes across Europe, it gave Catholicism a big push - especially important in France, where areas like education had been heavily secularised. The Church sheltered a number of Vichy officials wanted for wartime atrocities well into the 70s and 80s.
Note, also, that Franco-American relations during WW II were pretty messy. The US hated de Gaulle because of his independent line and continually tried to supplant him with more pliant French leaders, for example.
So to amble back to your question, from one point of view, Vichy was a French Fascist regime that enjoyed considerable support from some sections of French society. Why would the Nazis want to displace it? Many of the Vichy believed what the Nazis believed, or at least what other fascists like Franco and Mussolini did.
[1] Actually, perhaps it was the election before that. I'm too lazy to wander downstairs and check.
posted by rodgerd at 11:32 PM on December 2, 2008 [7 favorites]
First, French North Africa was never occupied by the Germansa. No German units of any size set foot in the country. Thus they couldn't back it up and Strasser was thus powerless. Any German presence would be vastly outnumbered by Frenchmen who need fear only the Vichy government.
Second, Morocco was never a part of France--it was a nominally independent country run by the French. Thus the Germans had very little influencew there.
As soon as one begins to stretch out the implications of these facts, the value of Vichy becomes apparent--the collaborationist government could exert influence and deny the Allies easy access. When the value of reduced garrisons in Metropolitan France and a local administration dedicated to wiping out the Communists and the Resistance (nearly the same thing) the value of Vichy becomes readily apparent.
Remember that every occupation requires collaboration--fighting all the inhabitants is just not practical. It isn't a command-and-control situation, there must be give and take or the occupation will be untenable.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:57 PM on December 2, 2008
Second, Morocco was never a part of France--it was a nominally independent country run by the French. Thus the Germans had very little influencew there.
As soon as one begins to stretch out the implications of these facts, the value of Vichy becomes apparent--the collaborationist government could exert influence and deny the Allies easy access. When the value of reduced garrisons in Metropolitan France and a local administration dedicated to wiping out the Communists and the Resistance (nearly the same thing) the value of Vichy becomes readily apparent.
Remember that every occupation requires collaboration--fighting all the inhabitants is just not practical. It isn't a command-and-control situation, there must be give and take or the occupation will be untenable.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:57 PM on December 2, 2008
It's worth mentioning that there were a number of attempted right-wing coups in France in the 30s, many involving people who would become heavily involved in the Vichy regime, and many of whom would enter far-right French politics after the war
Yep, if you want to know the various motivations behind Vichy, you can factor in the whole Pétain/Great War thing -- the scars of Verdun were still raw in 1940 -- and the general messed-up failure of democratic politics across Europe in the 1930s, of which the French incarnation heavily featured Action Française. (T.S. Eliot admired Maurras from across the Channel.)
posted by holgate at 12:15 AM on December 3, 2008
Yep, if you want to know the various motivations behind Vichy, you can factor in the whole Pétain/Great War thing -- the scars of Verdun were still raw in 1940 -- and the general messed-up failure of democratic politics across Europe in the 1930s, of which the French incarnation heavily featured Action Française. (T.S. Eliot admired Maurras from across the Channel.)
posted by holgate at 12:15 AM on December 3, 2008
Vichy wasn't totally helpless militarily, either. While the German invasion pretty much eliminated the French army as a credible force, the French navy was large and powerful. Some ships defected to the UK, but a lot of the French navy remained under Vichy control, and most of it was docked in north Africa.
During the American "Torch" landings in Vichy territory in north Africa, USS Massachusetts exchanged fire with the French battleship Jean Bart. Jean Bart was at anchor in a bay, and got the worst of it, but it still shows that the French navy was able to make a showing. If the Germans had gotten too nasty with the Vichy government, it could have ordered its ships north to ravage the coastline of occupied Belgium and the Netherlands, or sent them into the Med to attack Italy, or to attack the Libyan coast and harass the Italians (and later the Afrika Korps).
...or sent them to the UK to join the defectors.
posted by Class Goat at 12:23 AM on December 3, 2008
During the American "Torch" landings in Vichy territory in north Africa, USS Massachusetts exchanged fire with the French battleship Jean Bart. Jean Bart was at anchor in a bay, and got the worst of it, but it still shows that the French navy was able to make a showing. If the Germans had gotten too nasty with the Vichy government, it could have ordered its ships north to ravage the coastline of occupied Belgium and the Netherlands, or sent them into the Med to attack Italy, or to attack the Libyan coast and harass the Italians (and later the Afrika Korps).
...or sent them to the UK to join the defectors.
posted by Class Goat at 12:23 AM on December 3, 2008
Don't forget that Casablanca was made during World War II, and by Americans. They weren't always sure what was going on over there, and weren't yet sure how bad the atrocities of the Holocaust were. Even having Victor "escape from several concentration camps" and still be alive is unlikely.
posted by Melismata at 5:22 AM on December 3, 2008
posted by Melismata at 5:22 AM on December 3, 2008
The Nazis made Quisling the "Minister-President" of Norway and the wiki says 'Today in Norway, "Quisling" has become synonymous with "traitor".'
I've often seen Quisling meaning collaborator or Quisling government meaning puppet government. Four years in power, sixty years of infamy.
posted by ersatz at 5:26 AM on December 3, 2008
I've often seen Quisling meaning collaborator or Quisling government meaning puppet government. Four years in power, sixty years of infamy.
posted by ersatz at 5:26 AM on December 3, 2008
Even having Victor 'escape from several concentration camps' and still be alive is unlikely.
"Concentration camps" meant something different during the early years of World War II than it does today.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:48 AM on December 3, 2008
I've heard it said that if someone at the last turn of the century was told the Holocaust happened, they would have guessed it was the French who did it.
posted by dunkadunc at 8:29 AM on December 3, 2008
posted by dunkadunc at 8:29 AM on December 3, 2008
I've heard it said that if someone at the last turn of the century was told the Holocaust happened, they would have guessed it was the French who did it.
Before the resolution Dreyfus Affair, perhaps, but after 1906 French society was greatly realigned in terms of how it related to French Jews. Anti-Semitism remained a central tenet of the right wing, but this faction was pushed towards the fringe in a society where most moderates, if not fully repudiating anti-Semitism, had at least come to distrust it.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:11 AM on December 3, 2008
Before the resolution Dreyfus Affair, perhaps, but after 1906 French society was greatly realigned in terms of how it related to French Jews. Anti-Semitism remained a central tenet of the right wing, but this faction was pushed towards the fringe in a society where most moderates, if not fully repudiating anti-Semitism, had at least come to distrust it.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:11 AM on December 3, 2008
but in France's case, they chose to install a puppet government instead
I think this is the key to your misunderstanding. The French were very nearly defeated militarily as the Wehrmacht approached Paris. The government was divided on what to do. One view advocated a fallback to Algeria (legally considered an integral part of France) and other North African territories (protectorates and colonies), but others could not countenance abandoning France itself. What emerged was a consensus to surrender and sign an armistice. Germany occupied and controlled the parts of France it had already taken, including Paris, and Vichy became the seat of this government that many viewed as one of national salvation, the last thing short of utter defeat. There was, at least initially, understandable sympathy for this view. (This is when DeGaulle left, though, reflecting a minority position.) Petain and his Army-heavy cronies began heavy tilt to the right and fascism, but that wasn't a rationale for the government per se.
If you think back to the US in the run-up to the war, there was sympathy here for Germany over Russia and even Britain. Some people actually thought the German ethnic presence here mandated a closer relationship. (The pesky Jewish problem was seen as a public relations issue as much as anything. But then, most of the dead Jews to date had been at the hands of mobs, not a megalomaniacal government.) Similarly, France had a division of opinion about which European countries to trust or distrust. Obviously, WWI led many French to suspect the Germans more than the British, but French distrust of Britain had a long, long history, and so at the time there was some support for solving France's problems by signing a treaty and letting Britain fight a war that (some of) the French no longer felt they had any stake in. By the way, the French Navy was effectively taken out of the fight by two items -- first, the elements that fled in support of DeGaulle, and second, the key battleships that were sunk when the British, seeing no alternative, bombed the fleet at Oran, where most of it had harbored to stay out of German hands. It really played no significant part in the war after that, but it certainly confirmed some Vichy attitudes about the Brits.
It was only in 1942 that Germany invaded and occupied Vichy France. This was primarily for military considerations, as the Allies gained a foothold in North Africa and threatened an invasion of the southern flank of the Axis. At this time, the bulk of the remaining French Navy was scuttled, indicating that Vichy was not really a puppet regime in the way that it would usually be described.
posted by dhartung at 1:22 PM on December 3, 2008
I think this is the key to your misunderstanding. The French were very nearly defeated militarily as the Wehrmacht approached Paris. The government was divided on what to do. One view advocated a fallback to Algeria (legally considered an integral part of France) and other North African territories (protectorates and colonies), but others could not countenance abandoning France itself. What emerged was a consensus to surrender and sign an armistice. Germany occupied and controlled the parts of France it had already taken, including Paris, and Vichy became the seat of this government that many viewed as one of national salvation, the last thing short of utter defeat. There was, at least initially, understandable sympathy for this view. (This is when DeGaulle left, though, reflecting a minority position.) Petain and his Army-heavy cronies began heavy tilt to the right and fascism, but that wasn't a rationale for the government per se.
If you think back to the US in the run-up to the war, there was sympathy here for Germany over Russia and even Britain. Some people actually thought the German ethnic presence here mandated a closer relationship. (The pesky Jewish problem was seen as a public relations issue as much as anything. But then, most of the dead Jews to date had been at the hands of mobs, not a megalomaniacal government.) Similarly, France had a division of opinion about which European countries to trust or distrust. Obviously, WWI led many French to suspect the Germans more than the British, but French distrust of Britain had a long, long history, and so at the time there was some support for solving France's problems by signing a treaty and letting Britain fight a war that (some of) the French no longer felt they had any stake in. By the way, the French Navy was effectively taken out of the fight by two items -- first, the elements that fled in support of DeGaulle, and second, the key battleships that were sunk when the British, seeing no alternative, bombed the fleet at Oran, where most of it had harbored to stay out of German hands. It really played no significant part in the war after that, but it certainly confirmed some Vichy attitudes about the Brits.
It was only in 1942 that Germany invaded and occupied Vichy France. This was primarily for military considerations, as the Allies gained a foothold in North Africa and threatened an invasion of the southern flank of the Axis. At this time, the bulk of the remaining French Navy was scuttled, indicating that Vichy was not really a puppet regime in the way that it would usually be described.
posted by dhartung at 1:22 PM on December 3, 2008
You can't judge from Casablanca. It contains one major whopper: the letters of transit
More in the "Casablanca" wikipedia page's "Errors and Inaccuracies" section. The notion of a document (with a space for a name anybody could fill in) giving the bearer passage across international frontiers in 1941 is ridiculous, and was made up for the film.
posted by Rash at 2:03 PM on December 3, 2008
More in the "Casablanca" wikipedia page's "Errors and Inaccuracies" section. The notion of a document (with a space for a name anybody could fill in) giving the bearer passage across international frontiers in 1941 is ridiculous, and was made up for the film.
posted by Rash at 2:03 PM on December 3, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
For example, Denmark stayed pretty much the same. Same government, etc. Norway got a puppet government similar to France's.
posted by autojack at 10:05 PM on December 2, 2008