And travel in time the other way - to the French Revolution - a most divided time for any country. The Communist tendencies that prevailed then were still strongly in evidence in France during the 1940's, AND during the resistance war in France 1940/45, AND in the low level civil war that followed in 1946/7 ... AND of course, in the many 'manifestations' (student riots) that have taken place since.
My father was in the US 12th Regiment IV Division which helped liberate Paris. As an officer, he was briefed before hand and told the French General Le Clerc and the Free French would take the lead, but it was important to have US soldiers in Paris. They were afraid that the French resistance in Paris , who were mainly communists would not allow De Gaulle to establish a government in Paris. They were concerned about them forming a Commune as they did in 1870. The US soldiers were there to prevent that.
The fun part is your father entered Paris just after the Le Clerc Division, spearheaded by it's 9th Company also called "La Nueve" because it was composed of spanish republican veterans that fought with Le Clerc since Africa. All of them Communist or anarcosocialists. Le Clerc cherished but was also wary of their political leanings. All the vehicles in that company were named after battles in the spanish civil war.
As a Frenchman, there an grammatical error. The Vichy supporters are "Vichystes" and not "Vichyssois". "Vychissois" is the name of the people living in Vichy.
As a result of the high casualty losses France had during the First World War, the fight had been beaten out of France. At the time of its surrender, much of its army had not been in the fighting. The people of France were so fearful of a destruction of Paris and a casualty rate similar to the earlier war, the country just gave up. Only when it began to look like Germany would lose that the people shifted to supporting the allies. In other words, the "legitimate" government was whoever would bring peace with the fewest casualties. As the Germans got weaker, the Resistance got bigger.
@@babar5304 they fought, but lost 80000 troops within a few months. Petain saw what damage ww1 did, 10% of french population in ww1 died. So in his mind he tried his best not to antagonise the germans.
@@babar5304 You gotta remember that everyone was afraid of the USSR, as the saw it yeah Germany was bad but what was on the other side of Germany was much worse, the idea at the time was that if they joined forces with Germany they could stop the spread of communism, hence why so many French soldiers volunteered to fight Russia forming the Charlemagne SS division
@@babar5304 There was alot of French volunteers outside of the Charlemagne division too, remember our modern culture is very different to the culture at the time, Vichy France were doing what they thought was right, Britan was beaten, American hadn't yet joined the war, it was collaborate or be destroyed by the Germans or the USSR, not saying what they did at the time was right but back in those days such things were common
It's interesting that after World War II, when you asked French people what they did in the war, they all say that they were in the Resistance because they supported De Gaulle. Everyone wants to be on the winning side.
You'd find people doing that anywhere. The vast majority of folks would of been keeping their heads down and out of trouble. Then they'd sidle up to the winners.
There's a similar story about the number of people who claimed to have voted for Kennedy after his assassination. Polls ran at around 80% even though he barely scraped through to defeat Nixon and win office.
France during WW2 was complicated for sure, they had a lot of different opinions across their vast Empire. Sadly many people in their colonies had little or no say, until after the war and many gained their independence.
"sadly" most these colonies where still in the medieval era when France arrived some in the stone age. I think as historical empires go, none gave more to their colonies than the UK and France.
@@davidbowie50yearsofbowiean23 No nations stole so much as the British and French. They robbed collinies of natural resources, traded in slavery of the collinies populations stole lands and murdered millions. There was dam all difference between Hitler , Churchill and de Gaule. This might come as a shock to you but it is true.
@@briancarton1804 you want to talk about slavery? If it wasn't for the French and British empires, slavery would still be a mainstream industry today and legal, they stole natural resources, but guess what? Most the places that where colonies where also once apart of empires that did exactly the same thing! Through out history, empires have existed, from all continents they've rose, but most of human advances and progress can be attributed to them, from the Chinese Han empires to the Romans, you think humanity has gotten this far by luck? But no empires have advanced civilization more so than French and British ones. If you truly hate these empires, then you can't enjoy the advancements that wouldn't have existed without them if you don't want to be a hypocrite. You forgo all technology that where consequences of the industrial revolution if you don't want to be a hypocrite. Throw the keys to your car away, stop using your phone and the internet, don't use modern medicine, bring back your monarchs, tear down your modern buildings, tear up your modern roads and bring back the slave trade ect ect If you enjoy living in your pretty and comfortable 21st century bubble and don't want to return to the animal kingdom, then stop being so neive as to think that the European empires where not vital for our progression. You don't deserve what they created.
Occupied France during WWII is very interesting with topics like this. I get the nuances at the time but it must've been pretty disgusting to see fellow Frenchmen like Petain collaborate with the nazis and participate in the Holocaust and fascism when both conservatives and leftists opposed them via Free France
@James Goodman yeah it's pretty interesting how a lot of these guys gained notoriety due to WWI but absolutely ruined their reputations by joining Vichy France in WWII
@@Spongebrain97 It's crazy to me that you think this was a decision easily reached. And not a nuanced action that requires actual thought and conviction.
France had its Anti-Semitic episode in the Dreyfuss affair. I think generally the anti-Dreyfusards would be more inclined to fascism. Edit: I commented before the video mentions Dreyfuss. Haha
espically given the fact petain was a ww1 war hero who basically saved the french army at verdun and thus france. it was that fact that saved him from the gulliotine.
I can't say which side I'd be on, but considering when the Allies took over North Africa many Vichy forces switched sides and joined the allies growing the Free French forces should indicate how some French felt about the Nazis. One confusing part to me that complicates things were the French Police forces including those in Paris. The French police helped gather up people for the Nazis, but at the same time there were police who were members of the French Resistance. The Germans clearly didn't trust them too much by limiting their side arms to small .32 caliber pistols (which alone tells you how much control Germany was given) and when the French Resistance rose up one police barracks was attacked by the Germans who ironically used French tanks to attack it.
@@weareeverywhere8851 You will never have your ethnostate You will never have that race war You will never have a tradwife gf You will never lose your virginity You will never touch a woman You will never truly be happy You will never have a chin You will never be a man
Is that why the French preferred the treatment of their German occupation over the American one? Both sides (Vichy and the Free French) hated the allies.
When France fell and DeGaulle went to London he met with the former Premier, he also went to London with gold. As France fell there were many who planned for him to continue the war. Towards the end of the war 1.2 million French fought for the allies and invaded Germany, Petain was captured there being turned over near the Swiss border. Even though Petain was sentenced to death DeGaulle commuted it to life imprisonment; many wondered why
Why ? Well Pétain, even to this day, is a problematic figure, because he was a hero of WW1 and deserves the title of "hero" for what he has done during WW1, this is why this was humiliating to the French, the Nazis went even further into humiliation, to make him sign the armistice in the same trainwagon where the armistice of 1918 was signed a few years back. To this day, Pétain's day of death is controversial, not every politicians wants to pay tribute for what he had done during WW1 because of the reputation he got (and deserved) during WW2, so when commemorating WW1 many politicians avoid the Petain Subject. I have a say tho that I personally agree with Macron for once when he said : "Petain was a WW1 hero although he was a traitor of France during WW2" which is actually the grey moral of the story.
@@NONO-oy1cu exactly. And it is quite understandable why many of the French don't give enough credits for his heroism during WW1 is the fact that his treason was so humiliating that it buried his reputation of WW1 hero
A part of it was de Gaulle knew and worked with Petain even before ww1 and ghostwrote for him in the interwar years, they were close even though de Gaulle said he "died" in 1925. They disagreed and ultimately fought against each other, but de Gaulle still had respect for his former mentor.
I have family in France and I asked my cousin when I visited if there were any Vichy french around and she very sternly told me that they were traitor's and pointed to the spot outside of the window or there was either a statue or a fountain or something there or maybe a light post and said that a guy was dragged out of his house and executed right at that spot for being a collaborator with the Nazis.... To give this all context this was in Reims France right by the one train station... You could kick a football from the station to the spot that she said where it happened. Perhaps someone from there could chime in and get this context?
So I am not from Reims but I can give some general context as a French guy. In 1944 after the liberation the French population went on a witch hunt against the collaborationists. Some really were and were arrested or even killed. But others had nothing to do with nazis but were still denounced by people who disliked them. Some women that had relationships with Germans were shaved. So for the guy in Reims he might have been (or not) a collabo and in a riot the people would have assaulted him in revenge.
@@supergoulag7923 I often wondered about that myself just the context behind it all but I could not stress enough how instantly angry my cousin got. I figured it was a sore subject so I just avoided it from then on and just tried to read up about it. Wait a second isn't there like the surrender museum where the Germans surrendered in Reims?
Sadly the morale of the French Government was broken even before Paris was declared an open city. The proposed Franco British Union was also turned down. De Gaulle for me was a true patriot of France. Petain by his actions proved that he would be on the wrong side on French history.
Being on the wrong side of history is always funny you know history is written by winners. « Male Victis »as we say. It’s important to understand that without Vichy, France would have entirely become a german Gaulheiter as Poland for example, which the worst thing that could happen. In 1940, Pétain did what he thinks he had to do, he could have stayed home when the French President Paul Reynaud asked him to replace him. Aged 84, he could have stayed home but he didn’t. He obviously knew he was tarnishing his reputations that for him it was a sacrifice. The main error he did was that he didn’t join Algeria in 1942 when he had the opportunity to do so (when the occupied zone had been invaded).
At first, the angle on how I've saw my country division was "the sword and the shield" POV as an image of Pétain trying to defend the French citizens and De Gaulle willing to pursue the war at whatever cost. Over time, it switched to a better appreciation of De Gaulle. As I've learned furthermore about Pétain ideas, although I appreciate the valors, it was in the end nothing but empty promises in dire times, and people shocked by the defeat and worried about the future of France led them to trust Pétain. And I can't see the difference with Germany's population opinion about their new Chancellor in 1933. I can't blame the part of people who prefered to trust Pétain because it was the "best" choice. At least in the early stages of the fall of France. In the end, the France Libre was right, and managed to contribute a lot for the Allies, and gives them a more heroic aspect of their acts as they've achieved the impossible sometimes. A friend and I had both of our grand grand parents coming from the same region living through those times. His was in the Résistance we know that he was involved a lot in 1944 in Brittany but that's all. Mine on the other was in the Navy, he was onboard the Strasbourg battleship. He witnessed Mers-El-Kébir event and then, when the germans invaded the ports at the total occupation, since the French Navy under Vichy scuttled all ships in Metropolitan France, he couldn't pursue the war, and got back to his wife until the end of the war. Both Grand grand parents weren't to deep in politics. One only wanted his country free, the other after the trauma just wanted to live his life peacefully with his loved one far from that war he hated so much (my mother told me he was very silent about those times,and at the rare occasions he would talk about it, he expressed every time his hate for the germans and the English, a bloodbath could have been avoided at Kébir and he was disgusted by what happened there.)
Yeah really great values from the guy who rolled back french values to pre-19th Century, rehabilitated the Dreyfuss antisemites and actively collaborated with the deportation of french jewish citizens.
@@differentboy9697 I was thinking about the following : "Travail, Famille, Patrie" Maybe it's not to you, but for me, these valors are important. But as I've said, those were nothing but empty promises from Pétain because of the reasons you quote.
@@matsoudo5980 I think the french motto of liberty, equality and fraternity encapsuled already that. Petain just twisted that motto to create a autoritharian state
@@differentboy9697 Encapsuled ? Yes and no, they're just not the same. I'm not denying the fact that Pétain used "Travail, Famille, Patrie" just to lure people to trust him. And "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" is well ... I'm French so I'm use to it, and I'm definitely attached to this motto, but the other one, context apart is different and more personal, and to me, is as important inpactful in a different angle ... That's just what I wanted to express.
The history of France during the war, and the years leading up to it, is certainly enormously complex. I've always been annoyed by the popular myth that the French were "weak" -- anyone who knows French history and especially WW1 knows that is nonsense. I do believe that France was somehow a spent force in the 1930s, it never really recovered from the Great War and the political divisions were fatal to France in 1940. As for De Gaulle, say what you will but he was indisputably a great propagandist. Certainly there were French who actively fought for liberation with justice but it's simply a fact that many French were sympathetic to Naziism and the French history in the Holocaust is not good. In summary, war is complex and France's experience in WW2 certainly illustrates that. So that is the history we should remember, not the myth of total national resistance, nor French cowardice -- which is an unfair an incorrect stereotype.
Many more Jews were deported from smaller countries. 105000 from the Netherlands, the almost entire Jewish population, 450000 from Hungary, 340000 from Romania, 228000 from Baltic states, etc....Not even 90000 from France. Many French civilians were deported or even shot, for hiding Jews. Rotten deviant politicians and average folks are 2 different things. During 4 years, about 30000 French civilians hostages and Maquis fighters had been executed on the spot without any trial, just after their capture. It was not uncommon to shoot 30 or 40 civilians hostages taken at random, for only 1 Nazi officer or soldier killed. ua-cam.com/video/dsvA0UkdRuw/v-deo.html The vast majority of the 40 million French people of that time were mainly concerned with finding something to eat and surviving.
You say that it took decades for us to come to terms with Vichy. You're wrong, we're not finished with it. It's still very much a painfull wound in our society.
@@rolandthomasset1713 The Germans occupied some English islands named Channel islands which are in the.... English Channel (indeed very fitting name). The photo must have been taken on one of the islands.
You also have to consider the political situation from before hand. Tldr De Gaulle’s advocation for a modernized and more professional military had (fairly or otherwise) earned him a reputation for being a potential Military Fascist in some circles due to said polarization, so I see why some people might have thought his resistance early on might be an elaborate power grab of some form if they believed that.
As I understand, De Gaulle was not held in high regard in the miltary and it was pure luck that he was the most senior officer outside of France who was opposed to surrender. He was never a team player, which is difficult in the military and worse in politics where both Churchill and Roosevelt barely tolerated him. While they sought to work together to defeat Germany, De Gaulle's sole focus was France and her empire, so they regularly downgraded his status and his office was moved further and further away from Downing Street.
Degaulle did not try to pursue the war, he ran away. A big nosed coward who left his people and then pretended that he was part of the victory won by the Allies and the Resistance.
I am an American who as a teen Agee lived in France as an exchange student. I studied in a public French lycée in the 1980s. In the history curriculum though they did teach in depth about the 3s Republic and Vichy France, I wouldn’t say they painted Petain or the SOB Laval in a negative way. This surprised me, and as that outspoken Américain, I made it a point out to the teacher what scumbags these guys were. I remember the teacher laughing and agreeing with me - she probably had been a child during the War. It just shows how decided France is and how much they like sweeping things under the rug. That said in a nearby town in Britanny where I lived there had been a friendly fire massacre by a US P51 Mustang that killed all the children in the square as a result of friendly fire/ collateral damage. It was a horrible time in human history and there was plenty of blame to go around. Great video summarizing a complicated subject. Well done!
In Italy, Allied fighter planes would deliberately strafe civilians in city streets and the outskirts. They would fly low and fire at them, women, children anyone. And they were so close they could see they were civilians. They would also fire at homes in residential areas. Crashed allied pilots would be quickly captured by the Germans, since if taken by locals they would often be killed.
There is an astronomical difference between a tragic wartime accident and the clearly deliberate tyranny and betrayal committed by Vichy France. The 75,000 human beings that Petan swept away to the concentration camps were French citizens. That p-51 pilot was risking his life to get France back to the French people. Many complaints about the conduct of the liberation by the Allies were displaced shame from France's defeat and collaboration.
There are two islands in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence named Saint Pierre and Miquelon. They are off the coast of Newfoundland. According to the Treaty of Paris in 1763 they remained as part of metropolitan France as whaling stations after France lost her possessions in Canada. On Christmas Day, 1941the tiny Free French navy invaded these two islands and took it away from Vichy France. Bear in mind that these two islands were not giving aid to German U-boats. Both the Canadian and British governments knew that the USA took the Monroe Doctrine seriously. They would never have conducted a military action in the New World without discussing it with the American government first. Charles deGualle did not care. He said that if the Americans were to invade these two islands he would instruct his forces to fire upon them. Less than than three weeks after the bombing of Pear Harbor he dared the Americans to a fight. President Franklin Roosevelt despised him. As an aside every French citizen in these two islands must have made a lot of money selling booze to American gangsters when the USA had prohibition.
@@procrastinator41 What are you exactly talking about when you mentionned the deported? The question of war prisonners, political opponents, jews or forced labour are complet different topics.
every country sweep their bad things under the rug, it's well known in France that the US military committed atrocities against civilians wether it was intentional or not, american soldiers also raped a large number of women in normandy
07:01 "Saving" France... by selling her to the enemy, the occupier. And they dared to deem this as preferable to fight... whatever reasons they had, no matter whether I would have done the same or maybe even worse, I cannot bring myself to feel anything but shame and a hint of disgust towards many of my fellow countrymen of these years.
C'est dans ces moments critiques que les héros ou les traitres sont révélés, toi comme moi ne pourront jamais savoir dans quel camp nous sommes à moins d'y être confrontés un jour...
Two things can be true at the same time. Vichy France were national socialist collaborators and communists are terrible. It is a logical fallacy to say it’s one or the other
You're implying that all/most of Free France were communists--not even close to true. Anti-communism was an excuse the collaborationists used to try to justify their position. There might be a "legitimacy" debate, but there should be no debate over which side was morally preferable, Vichy or Free France.
Both sides hated communism. Heck, everyone back then hated communists. Why we fought on their side? Good question... Why we no longer hate them today? Hmm...
I know Roosevelt originally wanted France to be treated as a defeated nation after the war rather than as one of the victors. I think that view was legitimate and within the allies' rights considering all the material aid the Vichy government gave to the Reich. The other view I think is also legitimate, de Gaulle and the Free French military and colonies also gave significant material support to the allies. Furthermore considering the liquidation of the Vichy regime by the Reich I would consider the Free French government as legitimate. Still that view has led to an unearned exoneration of France for it's participation in the holocaust and the wider war. We must not romanticize or exaggerate the small role of the Free French and pretend France was clean and innocent, the collaboration was willful, not coerced, Petain gave minimal resistance to the demands of the Reich and the French people largely went along with it. The point is this ,a crime was committed, this is undeniable. The question is whose guilty?
En réalité, Roosevelt a très très longtemps misé sur Pétain, qu'il appelait son "très cher ami'', puis sur Darlan et Giraud après le Débarquement en Afrique du Nord, car il savait qu'ils étaient plus dociles et manipulables qu'un De Gaulle, raide comme une barre d'acier. Les US voulaient mettre la main sur l'empire colonial français, afin d'avoir un débouché pour leurs produits. Avec les Américains, il y a toujours le business en arrière-plan. Churchill savait que si les Américains mettaient la main sur l'empire français pour le démanteler et établir leur domination, ceci serait ensuite au tour de l'empire colonial britannique. De là le plus grand soutien du premier ministre britannique au chef de la France Libre. Pour le reste, la résistance et la collaboration, les choses sont beaucoup plus complexes. La majorité des Français n'étaient ni résistants, ni collaborateurs, mais cherchaient surtout à trouver à manger tous les jours, et à ne pas être pris dans une sale histoire. Les Américains n'ont jamais été envahis, ni occupés, et n'ont jamais connu de destructions de guerre massives. Ça devrait les inciter à rester prudents.
"Possession is nine-tenths of the law." The petain vichy regime was the government until overthrown; downplay of this is a postwar "courtesy" to France.
A courtesy or a denial of the willingness of people to go along with Fascisim ? Look at America today. A surprising amount of people are willing to go along with some terrible things and don't seem to have a problem with it. That's how it happens.
This video forgot to mention that the USA recognized Vichy France as the legitimate government. They forgot to mention Churchill bombed the French navy in North Africa which angered the French in Meis Kabir
Their navy were going to surrender to the Germans and Churchill gave them a chance to sail to allied ports. They were given a chance not to collabarate!
@@JohnSmith-ei2pz and yet the navy never surrendered to the German even in 1942 when they invaded the Free Zone. French Admiralty prefered to blow their ships than give them to the germans and as Churchill said himself Mers-El Kébir was one of the biggest mistake of the british in WW2, shifting public opinion who still view the British as allies to view them as ennemi by attacking French ships in French ports without any founded arguments...
@@leosimon241 Anyway u put it, Vichy was a very complicated situation . The French were never Axis and collaborators are not necessarily all quislings . Then u have Horthy in Hungary but he actually was Axis but not a Nazi collaborator .
800 ad and the swearing in of Charlemagne the King of the Franks as the Holy Roman Emperor was Frances height of power and Prestige . After he died it was all division, war and splintering.
Better thank the French and Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne, for defeating the Umayyad invasion at the Battle of Tours in October 732. If not, the history of Europe would have been much different under Islamic rule.
Thanks for the Information not much is talked about the Vichy France and Free France. Mainly talked about Germany and Italy in Classes in Hight School and collage. not much talked about the Vichy France also Vichy and Free fought each other in Vichy French Syria and Lebanon 1941.
Ya he hated the Allies. This whole "this side vs that side" narrative is an easy brainwashing trick they use. "De Gaulle was a hero because he was against the other side". Such a low IQ take. He was basically a national socialist or authoritarian just like Germany and just like Vichy, but just didn't want German control and didn't blame the jews. He hated communism and even tried to go as extreme as banning mini-skirts.
St Helena !!? St Helena is a small British crown colony in the central Atlantic Ocean, it was never French . I believe St Pierre et Miquelon Islands near Canada shortly after the French defeat sided with the free French. That British policeman on Jersey looks silly here talking to the German officer too ( not in France!). Also it was hilarious French President Mitterrand lambasting Croatia wanting to be free in 1991 cos they were on the Axis side in ww2 while he himself was a Vichy official at the time and the Croatian Pres Tudjman was an officer in the Yugoslav partisans fighting the Germans and Italians!
St Helena was {and IS) definitely British. St Pierre et Miquelon fell under de Gaul's control on 25/12/ 1941. French India (Pondicherry etc.) was among the first to join France Libre along with the British-French Condominium of New Hebrides. This was followed by Chad and New Caledonia and then the rest of French Equatorial Africa (including the Cameroons).
That's the thing about war; brings out the very worst in people, but perversely also innovation. Think of the leaps in aviation for example regarding the latter. It's easy to talk now, with the benefit of hindsight, but put yourself in the shoes of the people who lived then. Painful choices to make.
It’s only the reminder that facts are more important than ideology. Indeed you’ll find all the counterexamples you need against simple narratives on WWII (most state memorial propaguanda from today) when you look at the history of Vichy France.
The irony being they were both right, if france had resisted the populace would be killed greatly, if they resisted they would be punished and france crushed. But resisting from outside allowed resistance without endangering france. It is easy to look back and say they should have resisted, but the shock of losing so fast and german troops being in your country would scare you badly. I can see why people would agree to it at first.
I must've read about 300 of the comments. What I didn't see was any real context given to what happened to France during WWI. WWII began less than 25 years later. France suffered horrifically during WWI. Not just the number of French killed but the devastation of the land. People still die there from unexploded munitions more than a century later!
I think the legitimacy changed as the war went on. One argument against Vichy's legitimacy was the 3rd Republic's 1875 constitutional laws stated "the republican form of the government cannot be the object of a revision". Therefore, some argued after the war that the law of July 10th, 1940 was itself unconstitutional and by extension made the Vichy regime illegitimate. But certainly in 1940, a vast majority of French people thought Vichy was the only legitimate government. As for Free France, they didn't have much legitimacy in the beginning, but as more colonies joined them, like French Equatorial Africa in 1940, they gained some. The turning point was probably in 1943, when all the Resistance movements fused in the National Council of the Resistance and swore allegiance to Free France, De Gaulle united the other French pro-Allied forces in North Africa under his banner and an assembly gathering all resistance movements and republican political parties was created in Allied-controlled Algeria. From that point on I think there's no contest of legitimacy.
Petain's government had the legitimate claim. The head of the French government appointed him to the position. Ideologies cloud everything , hind sight is 20/20. The every day French citizen just wanted themselves and their loved ones to survive and made their decisions accordingly.
There is no dignity in becoming totalitarian -- Pétain, "the Savior of Verdun" in 1916, should have known better than to accommodate Nazi demands in 1940. As it turned out, it didn't prevent France from being totally taken over (never a surprise when one strikes a deal with Fascists). The fact that dignity was still being carted out as an excuse 30+ years later is reprehensible. Luckily, the senior-year ("Terminale") curriculum of 1986-87 had taken care of that -- I know because I was an exchange student in France that year, and the instruction was rather unkind to "the Chief of the French State."
The main reason I believe Free France to be the legitimate government is because whether or not signing the armistice was legal or not or was voted by parliament; it was not of free choice. Both the signing and the vote were both compelled due to having lost against Nazi Germany. Thus choice was simple; get along with Hitler and get something, or stay until the end and get nothing. When something is compelled like that; it can't be considered legitimate.
@@quanghuyvo6112 Think of it this way: under the Geneva Convention prisoners of war, despite being legitimately under the coersion and capture by the enemy, soldiers still had recogniton of their right (and duty) to resist. They not only had to be taken care of much like the enemy country's own soldiers, but if they escaped they could not just be killed on sight - they had to be brought back to captivity and only face "disciplinary punishment". My whole point is; it's not the duty of the citizens under coersion to maintain the surrender as it is the right of all people to be free and independent and not be subject to arbitrary punishment in violation of basic human rights.
Ultimately, de Gualle was the more heroic. That seems undeniable. That said, I can't help but sympathize with Petain and the Vichy. The Germans held all the leverage in the form of 2 million french POW's, a handicapped French army (limited to 100k troops), and direct control of the majority of France's territory. When Germany asked for something, Petain felt that he had no choice but to give it while doing the best he could for the French people in areas that the Germans didn't care about. He shouldn't have collaborated and forced the Germans to come out and use brute force, as they eventually did anyways. But hindsight is 20/20 and he probably daw himself as making the best of a bad situation
I didn't know about this incredible division inside France, thanks for all the insights and keep up with this interesting content. Could you also do a video about the downfall of Italy in ww2 and the chaos after the armistice with the allies?
France was a deeply divide society prior to WWII. There was even an attempted right-wing coup. I believe that this polarization, this lack of compromise and social cohesion was a major factor in the German victory.
Sorry, but this video is premised on an error. France's division was physically between occupied and Vichy France, but the two competing ruling governments of France were Petain's Vichy government in southern France and DeGaulle's "Free French" HQ'd in London (with some territorial occupation in Africa). NOT occupied and unoccupied France as shown at the outset.
Most of these soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk in the beginning of June 1940, the Battle of France wasn't finished yet so they were send back to France to continue the fight against the Wehrmacht until the armistice (the 22nd of June)
The fall of France was a HUGE trauma and a HUGE surprise even for Germany ... Pétain want the same for France than Germany just After 1ww ...and avoid Germanization as Poland invaded.
I've wondered sometimes what would have happened here in Australia in 1940 if we had been a former french, not British, colony. A low level civil war is my guess.
Its interesting that you say De Gaulle still alluded to France's power as an empire and coloniser when trying to gain support. Even though every thing that was happening to them was due to another country's empire building. Sounds like Europe is getting some serious payback.
It's logical. Vichy was on the Axis side. And don't make it bigger. Not even 1 week of fightings, with relatively light casualties. A few hundred killed, and as many wounded.
Vichy cannot be fully understood without the chronology of the war. Indeed the Vichy state of 1940 is not the same as the one of 1941, and becomes much more different as the war goes especially when the situation worsen on the german side after 1943, who began to put more and more pressure. In 1944, Germany has almost total control of the Vichy state (even if the free zone was invaded since November 1942, there were still bits of sovereignty). Politically it’s was also a total mess. One sure thing you can’t say about Vichy is that it was the typical battle between fascist and anti-fascist or patriots against pacifists, it was much more complicated than that (and simply not true!). If you read/speak french, i’ve gathered all kinds of documentaries/archives/lessons on this period in this playlist : ua-cam.com/play/PLmSzftHmGc7MasNZFEyPOwCsFQmG0DRI6.html I suggest in particular one France Inter podcast about the entire life of Philippe Pétain (in the playlist above, 10 episodes of 1 hour) “le fantôme de Philippe Pétain” (2022).
Interesting fact. Australia had diplomatic relations with the Vichy regime and Sir Roden Cutler was awarded the VC for his actions in Syria against the Vichy Forces.
I was just reading Eisenhower's memoir _Crusade in Europe_ last month and I was surprised how contentious the Allied debate on who would replace the Vichy as they liberated French territory.
Roosevelt saw De Gaulle as a potential dictator. Churchill admired him but considered that de Gaulle's intransigence in preserving the independence of France was detrimental to the war effort of the allies. De Gaulle wanted to erase the shame of 1940 by making France participate in the crushing of Nazism and restore it to its rank of great power. De Gaulle opposed with all his might the establishment of an allied military government in France or of a provisional government whose members would have been chosen by the Anglo-Americans. These disagreements had the strange consequence that Moscow recognized Free France as the legitimate government of France before the United States.
@@bernardmerveille2315 S'il n'en n'avait tenu que de Roosevelt, la France aurait été sous AMGOT et probablement divisée après la guerre. Je ne suis pas certain que les Français réalisent à quel point ils auraient pu perdre leur pays.
@Jean-Louis Lalonde In what world would France have been divided? By whom and for which powers? Germany and Austria was due to both sides meeting there. Japan wasn't divided because it capitulated long before any Soviets could reach it.
@@stephenjenkins7971 Japan threw in the towel not because of the 2 atom bombs dropped on them , It was the Soviet invasion of the northern islands that put the wind up them and remembering that Koniev pulped the Jap army in Manchuria.
@@unclestuka8543 The Soviet invasion that almost failed despite how close it was to the Eurasian landmass and which the Japanese islands were hundreds of times further. The Soviets did NOT have the means to invade the main islands. More to the point, the Japanese is an island nation; its mainland territories are only possible with its naval superiority. The Manchurian Army was already long crippled due to its inability to be reinforced by the Japanese islands due to the US Navy. Basically; the USSR was completely unnecessary.
Several must be remembered as to why so many people supported petain 1) after ww1 that literally bled out France (just go to any French village and so how many died during the war) and a humiliating defeat in 6 weeks , petain solution seemed like a better option 2) The British, that were already not very liked in France for historical reasons and more recently for their attitude in Dunkerque towards French troops , fearing a german takeover of the French fleet unilaterally attacked the French fleet a mers el Kebir, whiteout warning de Gaulle and killing thousands of French sailors, which helped a lot the anti Allie’s propaganda machine of Vichy 3) petain and his regime floated a sort of myth that the surrender was just a ruse to prepare for a revenge attack against, which explains why even many anti German military Frenchman stayed loyal to Vichy for so long. In November 1942 with the German invasion of the Vichy zone, they realized it was a lie and it explains why so many French troops in Africa later rallied the free French forces
But wasn't the attitude of a certain French admiral (Darlan ) unhelpful in getting things avoided. The mixed loyalties and ambitions of those in power/influence in France wasn't helpful to such situations when so much was at stake.
Yep a lot of people forget how many people in France were anti-British and anti-Allies and surprisingly pro-Vichy. Obviously not everyone was in the resistance or supported de Gaulle. I think unifying France after its liberation required the myth of resistance
From a British perspective, I can see it wouldn't have been easy for France. Looking back, you have to ask, would the Allies have been able to build up a big enough force to liberate France if the US hadn't gotten involved? And if not, then what?
It is easy to bash France for cooperating with nazi Germany. However the people governing the anglo islands in the Channel (Jersey and Guernesey) cooperated with the new German administration and many Jews were sent to Auschwitz during the war. Many women after the war had to be protected from the locals because they had engaged in relations with the Germans. However I don't know whether they had their heads shaved like some women in France.
Here we go again, portraying the Jew as victim,when at the time many new them as the begeters of store and division,established at their first international conference,a step inline with Those "articles" at present most near to fulfilment.
Your French accent (to me anyway) seems 'parfait'! Good job with this one👍Historical hindsight is 20/20 but the bottom line is if my country (NZ) was invaded by an oppressive foreign power, I believe I would resist and fight where I could with staunch patriots, regardless of what our prime minister said.
We all like to believe that we would be on the side of the resistance, but trust me, things are not easy when you're stuck in the middle of a fight and that you are requested to take side. Imagine the courage de Gaulle must have had to fly away to England to continue the fight when it appeared that everything was lost. He put his family in danger, lost his house (occupied and damaged by German soldiers) and wages and was sentenced to death by the Vichy government.
@@jean-louislalonde6070 Yes I have been studying de Gaulle's life & speeches for French classes - he was a giant among men for sure, who really loved his country and 'saved France' again as a politician years after the war. I can understand why many people sided with Petain initially but I believe as the war went on (with the Milice & deportations etc.) a lot changed their minds and agreed that de Gaulle was right - and saw the Vichy motto of 'travail, famille, patrie' que c'était en vérité: terreur, famine, prison ! Vive la France🙂
@@atlanticrf haha plenty of us have guns in NZ mate. Not handguns or AR's perhaps (limited to club/range use), but hunting semi-auto rifles of all types - one of the highest per capita in the western world I believe. Our liberal government is making licencing more of a process, but hunting is still a BIG sport here, with no real gun violence - long may it continue👍🙂
Regardless of values (don’t kill me people), Vichy did have a more legitimate claim to power. That is undeniable. However, that didn’t help them in the end 11:14
Someone who speaks with the benefit of vast knowledge and experience is Authoratative. This is a good thing. Someone who can brook no opposition is an Authoritarian. This is generally considered to be not so good.
Great works guys, now can you please cover the Battle of Vercors which was the largest battle fought between the French resistance and the Germans only weeks before Operation Dragoon. For more info read Vercors 1944 by Peter Lieb.
People love a winner. Had Germany won the war, the French would have supported Pétain's decision to side with Germany. But since the Allied won, the French were glad to see de Gaulle was fighting and winning with them. Anglophones often like to mock the French for surrendering to nazi Germany but they always forget the following: Free French fought in Africa, in Italy, liberated southern France (landing in Provence), liberated Paris and part of eastern France and carved up a slice of Germany for post war occupation. Living in Montreal, I met 40 years ago the granddaughter of general Maxime Weygand who was given the impossible task of fighting Germany when the war was well engaged and almost already lost. She did not want to talk about it for obvious reasons.
Difficult to think of a bigger fall from grace in history, than that of Petain's. Going from being idolised as the Lion of Verdun, only to end up being a Vichy puppet dictator...
I’m guessing this is an error? Possibly showing a British police officer talking with an occupying German army officer on one of the Channel Islands, since this was the only British territory to be occupied by the Nazis AFAIK?
I've always disagreed with many Americans on DeGaulle. Been an admirer for year. He had a bad rep with the American govt and others. But to me, he was a true French patriot who was willing to fight the Germans at any cost. France needed that more than anything in 1940. The old, washed-up General officers of the French Army led them to ruin. DeGaulle was an innovator who wanted to change French doctrine before WWII. They should have listened to him.
He was definitly stubborn and difficult to deal with in some occasions. But honestly Churchill is one other of this kind and war lead harsh people to rise up in general. In an other hand during the Cuba crisis he fully supported Kennedy.
Agreed. Being a rough personality to deal with does not undermine that he was one of the heroes of France, willing to oppose the Nazi's instead of becoming a puppet of one of the most evil regimes in history. My only gripe is he didn't ensure Petain and every last collaborator faced the firing squad for betraying their people.
@@camm8642 I completely understand why his contemporaries had a negative view of him. He did give the prima donna vibes. I do try to put myself in their shoes. But he had to unyielding in his resolve. For that, he should always be held in the highest regard, regardless of the different factions within France.
Very interesting video, but I think there is an important point you forgot to mention about franco-british relations. The reason why siding with the British was so annoying was that, I think, many French at this time did not see the British as reliable for some reasons : - The historical past between France and Great Britain did not encourage the trust between the French and the British especially since the British often sided in favor of Germany during the interwar period which led France to agree to German development and rearmament. -The French since Dunkirk saw the British as traitors because they decided to withdraw from France when the French Grand Headquarters was organising the last possible offensive to cut the main German forces from their supply lines. Because of this retreat, the French thought that this "Perfide Albion" abandonned France to the hands of the Germans. This was heavily reinforced by Vichy's propaganda and the British attack at Mers-El-Kebir. As such the French could think that even if the Allies won in the end France would be relegated as a puppet state of Anglo-saxon countries, fear which has almost been real with the USA heavily supporting Giraud to be at the head of the new French government.
Actually the worst kind of conflict is civil war -> when neighbours "turn onto each other - on the "orders" of a few untouchables" - in this regard Petain and DeGaulle were the same ... in the end 90+% of the people suffered in some way ... luckily the large scale conflict settled after WW2 ... but the dissolution of Yugoslavia ... a very similar story in the end ... the effects are still felt today ...
St Helena was {and IS) definitely British. St Pierre et Miquelon fell under de Gaul's control on 25/12/ 1941. French India (Pondicherry etc.) was among the first to join France Libre along with the British-French Condominium of New Hebrides. This was followed by Chad and New Caledonia and then the rest of French Equatorial Africa (including the Cameroons).
One of the thing for De Gaulle was that some allied countries saw vichy France as the legitimate state like the us did at one point, and try to undermine his efforts like during the North African campaign in which they tried to put a vichist defector in charge...
Well, one of my French teachers told us back in the 1980s, that before D-Day, it was very difficult to impossible to find anyone in the French Resistance, but after D-Day, "everyone" had been in the French Resistance. So, it may be a matter of perspective. From a purely International Law view, the Third Republic was the legitimate and elected government of France, thus making the armistice, or surrender, a legally binding agreement, therefore Vichy France was the legal one. However, from a purely moral stance, the Free French did have a much more humane approach. In my case, my side would have been the Free French.
For information, about 30000 French civilian hostages and Maquis fighters had been executed on the spot without any trial just after their capture. It was not uncommon to shoot 30 or 40 civilian hostages, for only 1 NazI officer or soldier killed. A big part of these executions took part before DDAY. Anglosphere always put DDAY on the table, but this operation was only a 3 months operation out of 5 years of war.
From my outsider point of view netheir side had any claim to rule outside of values and both were petty warlords... Although I have to say Petain was voted in by their parliament which made him slightly mode legitment or even the only choice if you believe in total law and demcrocy... But De gaulle made for a better ally to the allies and was better at being a warlord at least.
Just note that a good part of the parliamentaries who were in favor of keeping fighting were already boarding boats to go in exile in Africa when the vote occured and discovered that this vote was going to happen to late to counter it.
The Paris Police actively participated in the round up of Jews just two weeks before they went on strike in support of the Resistance and the liberation of Paris in 1944. Truly a nation divided.
Actively is actually not true, there is a very good and recent book about the police of Vichy during the war and especially their role during the Vel d’Hiv round up in 1942, written by French historian Laurent Joly who goes very far into the subject, i suggest it to you
To my understanding this is still debated among the French which is called the Sword and Shield debate. Petain was the "shield" that prevented France from becoming like other countries the Germans took over while deGaul was the "sword" that fought back when the time was right.
Thanks for another great video, and for speaking about these confused/confusing events. A few small clarifications regarding the French forces in England which requested to be sent back to France to "serve" Pétain's regime: 1. By mid/late June 1940, there were only a few thousand of them left in England, the vast majority of the 125,000 French troops evacuated at Dunkirk had already been sent back to France in early June. So 75% of very few people isn't much, in the end. 2. French soldiers (in England or France) had absolutely no idea what was going on or was going to happen. Most thought/hoped they would simply be demobilised and sent back to their homes and families. 3. In late June, and the days following Pétain's call to cease fighting, there was still no such thing as a "Vichy Regime". The situation in France was utterly confused and chaotic. The new regime only started to take form on 10th July. The French population rallied behind Pétain because of his prestige and reassuring figure, and because they needed some stability within the whole general mess and catastrophy, but had no idea what was to come or what Pétain had in store for them and the country. 4. About the 10th July vote, there is a common misconception that the French parliament voted to give Pétain "full powers", as in "complete control of the country". Yet that is untrue. They voted to give Pétain full powers specifically to "draft a new constitution, create new parliamentary chambers, and propose legislation which would be discussed and ratified by the parliamnetary chambers". None of the above ever materialised. Parliament was first indefinitely suspended, then simply abolished. Pétain was never, ever, given "all powers" to become a dictator with a complete control of the country. What he did was a coup, taking advantage of the defeat. The constitutional text on which the French parliament voted on 10th July is available online and really short, so it will be easy for anyone to check and compare with what actually happened after the vote. 5. Vichy was composed of people who hated the Republic and liberal values. People who had been hoping and waiting all their life, Pétain included, for the right opportunity to get rid of the Republic and implement their ultra-conservative, authoritarian, reactionary agenda. The 1940 defeat gave them that opportunity. Once this was achieved, they were hoping to become the favoured province in the new Europe under Nazi control, in order to keep the power they had gained by sustaining the illusion of "independence", which explains the majority of their political moves and collaboration between 1940 and 1944.
Don’t forget that évent the US government refused to recognize de Gaulle’s and FFF legitimity until 1942, although they remained on allied side on the battle field. The Roosevelt administration kept diplomatic relationship with Vichy’s government, and after the landing in North Africa tried to promote a Vichyst leader against de Gaulle, Amiral Darlan and General Giraud.
The US Navy destroyed the Vichy fleet during the sea Battle of Casablanca. So that said alot about how the US looked at Vichy France; not very favorable.
Small comment in regard to your introductory statements. The Battle of France was not fought in trenches which you refer to around the 45 second mark of the video. The nature of blitzkrieg ensured that in this battle there would be no trenches.
In that it’s something almost no one ever thinks about, that’s a fair assumption. However if you think about how the Vichy military resisted the allies in North Africa than it’s no surprise.
Heard an in-depth analysis on the state of France years back saying that the political condition/divide of the country was so bad that if WW2 did not happen France almost certainly would have gone into civil war with itself. Would have been very horrible if they did but I imagine if that did all happen then it would have kicked off another Great War in its self with major powers taking sides much like the American civil war which almost became the 1st World War. I would think London would want nothing more than to destroy france and taking her goodies so they would support both sides until Oblivion. The Soviets and other Fascist/Communist like minded countries would help Vichi France while Germany if the Fascist never gained power and they went into a Republic mindset like they did with Bismarck would help Northern Frances De Gaul. It would put America into a precarious situation wanting to stay out and before you know it the “supporters” start fighting each other causing a Great War.
11:05: De Gaulle's is smarter, saner even. However, not gonna lie, barring the Nazi buttkissing and damning anti-Semitism, Petain had some good societal morals at first. Extra emphasis on "had," though, and not even his heroics from the First World War could have redeemed him. The latter. Playing both sides would seem fitting, although I'll be overseas.
Did you know that Vichy supported the resistance in 1940 ? Things are much more complicated than we can imagine. And the situations are very contradictory depending on the years of the events.
This is not the whole story. The Resistance was actually a groups of different political ideologues, who often hated and fought each other. Vichy helped some groups aligned with their views, but it was middle ranked officers or managers rather than direction from Petain.
In the fighting in North Africa, Australian forces were operating alongside French forces. There is the story, from the Riverland in South Australia, of a town's lads that went to war. Only a couple returned. But what struck sore was that a patrol of them weren't killed fighting Germans or Italians. They were on patrol when the French changed sides. Going between posts, they expected to be received warmly by their French allies. Unbeknownst to them, the French in their sector had switched allegiances and were now Vichy. The French opened up on the Australians when they came in sight...and only a couple of blokes made it back to Allied lines. Hence why, to the Rats and others who served in North Africa, the saying was: you can trust a German, you can trust an Italian: you can trust they are your enemy; but you can never trust a Frenchman. I was lucky enough to know a Bren Gunner from Swan Reach in my youth, from whom I heard that story. He was one of the few survivors of that patrol - because he had the heavy gun, and was slower than the others.
Stupid reflexion. Soldiers are normally on the side of their government but some changed side because of their values. It's not about being "unreliable".
If I had been french at the time...I would of followed Petain, freeing France from the internal plight of socialism/communism would of been my main priority!.... especially after the upheaval of the Spanish civil war !
I don't know the correct terminology but apparently a situation exists where the person who is being bullied turns against it's saviour and sides with the bully possibly for feeling inadequate
France’s division is even evident in the later Algeria War where many former Vichy supporters joined the OAS against the De Gaulle government
Fascists vs colonialists. What a battle
@@LEFT4BASS de Gaulle wasn't a colonialist, there are many records showing he wanted to give a referendum on Algeria way before the end of the war
And travel in time the other way - to the French Revolution - a most divided time for any country. The Communist tendencies that prevailed then were still strongly in evidence in France during the 1940's, AND during the resistance war in France 1940/45, AND in the low level civil war that followed in 1946/7 ... AND of course, in the many 'manifestations' (student riots) that have taken place since.
Most OAS leader were résistant actually.
@@LEFT4BASS French communist also supported french rule over Algeria since they feered independent Algeria might go pro US
Petain was also a ww1 hero. His reputation as a French patriot also helped Bolster his popularity.
“You Either Die A Hero Or Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain.”
Not just a WWI hero, but as the *Lion of Verdun*
So the most famous battle against the Germans had the Lion side with the Germans
Pétain was a collaborator. But the French are cowards. So it is okay with them.
@@MiguelLopez-yc2rh soanish ppl are villains because of communist
Petain saved MIllions of French lives but unfortunately at the price of being labeled a traitor
My father was in the US 12th Regiment IV Division which helped liberate Paris. As an officer, he was briefed before hand and told the French General Le Clerc and the Free French would take the lead, but it was important to have US soldiers in Paris. They were afraid that the French resistance in Paris , who were mainly communists would not allow De Gaulle to establish a government in Paris. They were concerned about them forming a Commune as they did in 1870. The US soldiers were there to prevent that.
The fun part is your father entered Paris just after the Le Clerc Division, spearheaded by it's 9th Company also called "La Nueve" because it was composed of spanish republican veterans that fought with Le Clerc since Africa. All of them Communist or anarcosocialists. Le Clerc cherished but was also wary of their political leanings. All the vehicles in that company were named after battles in the spanish civil war.
Interesting perspective. I can't stand looking at Degaull for some reason
As a Frenchman, there an grammatical error. The Vichy supporters are "Vichystes" and not "Vichyssois". "Vychissois" is the name of the people living in Vichy.
The Vichy supporters are collaborators. Fixed it for you.
Looking at the spelling vichysoisse, I always thought that related to a soup dish? I thought it sounded wrong. Am I right Le gaullo napoleonien.
I thought Vishysois was a soup?
This is a good first effort, you need to continue this with more videos on this line of history, it is not what people think it is, it is much worse.
Much worse sells better. More likes & subscribes.
As a result of the high casualty losses France had during the First World War, the fight had been beaten out of France. At the time of its surrender, much of its army had not been in the fighting. The people of France were so fearful of a destruction of Paris and a casualty rate similar to the earlier war, the country just gave up. Only when it began to look like Germany would lose that the people shifted to supporting the allies. In other words, the "legitimate" government was whoever would bring peace with the fewest casualties. As the Germans got weaker, the Resistance got bigger.
@@babar5304 they fought, but lost 80000 troops within a few months. Petain saw what damage ww1 did, 10% of french population in ww1 died. So in his mind he tried his best not to antagonise the germans.
@@babar5304 Pétain did what was best at the time
@@babar5304 the french people widely supported him, so blaming only petain is surely incorrect
@@babar5304 You gotta remember that everyone was afraid of the USSR, as the saw it yeah Germany was bad but what was on the other side of Germany was much worse, the idea at the time was that if they joined forces with Germany they could stop the spread of communism, hence why so many French soldiers volunteered to fight Russia forming the Charlemagne SS division
@@babar5304 There was alot of French volunteers outside of the Charlemagne division too, remember our modern culture is very different to the culture at the time, Vichy France were doing what they thought was right, Britan was beaten, American hadn't yet joined the war, it was collaborate or be destroyed by the Germans or the USSR, not saying what they did at the time was right but back in those days such things were common
It's interesting that after World War II, when you asked French people what they did in the war, they all say that they were in the Resistance because they supported De Gaulle. Everyone wants to be on the winning side.
You'd find people doing that anywhere. The vast majority of folks would of been keeping their heads down and out of trouble. Then they'd sidle up to the winners.
This is similar today in Poland where some schoolchildren are taught that no Poles collaborated with the Nazis...George, Canada
I had the same bullshit answers with the people of Crete !
@@georgeschaut2178 Of course no Poles ever collaborated or worked with the Soviets
There's a similar story about the number of people who claimed to have voted for Kennedy after his assassination.
Polls ran at around 80% even though he barely scraped through to defeat Nixon and win office.
France during WW2 was complicated for sure, they had a lot of different opinions across their vast Empire. Sadly many people in their colonies had little or no say, until after the war and many gained their independence.
"fight for their independent" the french is the queen of not let anything do away
"sadly" most these colonies where still in the medieval era when France arrived some in the stone age. I think as historical empires go, none gave more to their colonies than the UK and France.
@@davidbowie50yearsofbowiean23 No nations stole so much as the British and French. They robbed collinies of natural resources, traded in slavery of the collinies populations stole lands and murdered millions.
There was dam all difference between Hitler , Churchill and de Gaule.
This might come as a shock to you but it is true.
@@briancarton1804 you want to talk about slavery? If it wasn't for the French and British empires, slavery would still be a mainstream industry today and legal, they stole natural resources, but guess what? Most the places that where colonies where also once apart of empires that did exactly the same thing!
Through out history, empires have existed, from all continents they've rose, but most of human advances and progress can be attributed to them, from the Chinese Han empires to the Romans, you think humanity has gotten this far by luck? But no empires have advanced civilization more so than French and British ones.
If you truly hate these empires, then you can't enjoy the advancements that wouldn't have existed without them if you don't want to be a hypocrite.
You forgo all technology that where consequences of the industrial revolution if you don't want to be a hypocrite.
Throw the keys to your car away, stop using your phone and the internet, don't use modern medicine, bring back your monarchs, tear down your modern buildings, tear up your modern roads and bring back the slave trade ect ect
If you enjoy living in your pretty and comfortable 21st century bubble and don't want to return to the animal kingdom, then stop being so neive as to think that the European empires where not vital for our progression. You don't deserve what they created.
@@davidbowie50yearsofbowiean23 What a load of unadulterated tosh.
Occupied France during WWII is very interesting with topics like this. I get the nuances at the time but it must've been pretty disgusting to see fellow Frenchmen like Petain collaborate with the nazis and participate in the Holocaust and fascism when both conservatives and leftists opposed them via Free France
The sad fact is Petain's 2nd in command Pierre Laval was much worse than him. Laval was a true blue Fascist.
@James Goodman yeah it's pretty interesting how a lot of these guys gained notoriety due to WWI but absolutely ruined their reputations by joining Vichy France in WWII
@@Spongebrain97 It's crazy to me that you think this was a decision easily reached. And not a nuanced action that requires actual thought and conviction.
France had its Anti-Semitic episode in the Dreyfuss affair. I think generally the anti-Dreyfusards would be more inclined to fascism.
Edit: I commented before the video mentions Dreyfuss. Haha
espically given the fact petain was a ww1 war hero who basically saved the french army at verdun and thus france. it was that fact that saved him from the gulliotine.
France at 1940, overran in a month, could've never known that Germany would fall just five years later.
in 1943/44 its was clear that Germany was losing, even Petain was arrested when he tried to start discussions with the allies
Sorry but you are wrong ! De Gaulle in his famous speech in June the 18th 1940 foresaw the complete defeat of the Germans !
@@antoinemozart243 Okay I said France not De Gualle
@@Lakeland_IV France is not a person! And De Gualle is unknown.
I can't say which side I'd be on, but considering when the Allies took over North Africa many Vichy forces switched sides and joined the allies growing the Free French forces should indicate how some French felt about the Nazis. One confusing part to me that complicates things were the French Police forces including those in Paris. The French police helped gather up people for the Nazis, but at the same time there were police who were members of the French Resistance. The Germans clearly didn't trust them too much by limiting their side arms to small .32 caliber pistols (which alone tells you how much control Germany was given) and when the French Resistance rose up one police barracks was attacked by the Germans who ironically used French tanks to attack it.
Vichy France all the way.
@@weareeverywhere8851
You will never have your ethnostate
You will never have that race war
You will never have a tradwife gf
You will never lose your virginity
You will never touch a woman
You will never truly be happy
You will never have a chin
You will never be a man
@@weareeverywhere8851 >Found the projecting soyboy.
>Fix your sh-ACK!
You can't trust a cop in any country. Note the British Channel Island Bobby collaborating with the Germans.
Is that why the French preferred the treatment of their German occupation over the American one? Both sides (Vichy and the Free French) hated the allies.
When France fell and DeGaulle went to London he met with the former Premier, he also went to London with gold. As France fell there were many who planned for him to continue the war. Towards the end of the war 1.2 million French fought for the allies and invaded Germany, Petain was captured there being turned over near the Swiss border. Even though Petain was sentenced to death DeGaulle commuted it to life imprisonment; many wondered why
Why ? Well Pétain, even to this day, is a problematic figure, because he was a hero of WW1 and deserves the title of "hero" for what he has done during WW1, this is why this was humiliating to the French, the Nazis went even further into humiliation, to make him sign the armistice in the same trainwagon where the armistice of 1918 was signed a few years back.
To this day, Pétain's day of death is controversial, not every politicians wants to pay tribute for what he had done during WW1 because of the reputation he got (and deserved) during WW2, so when commemorating WW1 many politicians avoid the Petain Subject. I have a say tho that I personally agree with Macron for once when he said : "Petain was a WW1 hero although he was a traitor of France during WW2" which is actually the grey moral of the story.
@@Neanderthal1 indeed Petain deserves to be called a hero and a traitor
@@NONO-oy1cu exactly. And it is quite understandable why many of the French don't give enough credits for his heroism during WW1 is the fact that his treason was so humiliating that it buried his reputation of WW1 hero
A part of it was de Gaulle knew and worked with Petain even before ww1 and ghostwrote for him in the interwar years, they were close even though de Gaulle said he "died" in 1925. They disagreed and ultimately fought against each other, but de Gaulle still had respect for his former mentor.
I have family in France and I asked my cousin when I visited if there were any Vichy french around and she very sternly told me that they were traitor's and pointed to the spot outside of the window or there was either a statue or a fountain or something there or maybe a light post and said that a guy was dragged out of his house and executed right at that spot for being a collaborator with the Nazis.... To give this all context this was in Reims France right by the one train station... You could kick a football from the station to the spot that she said where it happened. Perhaps someone from there could chime in and get this context?
Reims was not administrated by Vichy since it was in the occupied zone.
So I am not from Reims but I can give some general context as a French guy. In 1944 after the liberation the French population went on a witch hunt against the collaborationists. Some really were and were arrested or even killed. But others had nothing to do with nazis but were still denounced by people who disliked them. Some women that had relationships with Germans were shaved.
So for the guy in Reims he might have been (or not) a collabo and in a riot the people would have assaulted him in revenge.
@@supergoulag7923 I often wondered about that myself just the context behind it all but I could not stress enough how instantly angry my cousin got. I figured it was a sore subject so I just avoided it from then on and just tried to read up about it. Wait a second isn't there like the surrender museum where the Germans surrendered in Reims?
Sadly the morale of the French Government was broken even before Paris was declared an open city. The proposed Franco British Union was also turned down. De Gaulle for me was a true patriot of France. Petain by his actions proved that he would be on the wrong side on French history.
Being on the wrong side of history is always funny you know history is written by winners. « Male Victis »as we say. It’s important to understand that without Vichy, France would have entirely become a german Gaulheiter as Poland for example, which the worst thing that could happen. In 1940, Pétain did what he thinks he had to do, he could have stayed home when the French President Paul Reynaud asked him to replace him. Aged 84, he could have stayed home but he didn’t. He obviously knew he was tarnishing his reputations that for him it was a sacrifice. The main error he did was that he didn’t join Algeria in 1942 when he had the opportunity to do so (when the occupied zone had been invaded).
At first, the angle on how I've saw my country division was "the sword and the shield" POV as an image of Pétain trying to defend the French citizens and De Gaulle willing to pursue the war at whatever cost. Over time, it switched to a better appreciation of De Gaulle. As I've learned furthermore about Pétain ideas, although I appreciate the valors, it was in the end nothing but empty promises in dire times, and people shocked by the defeat and worried about the future of France led them to trust Pétain. And I can't see the difference with Germany's population opinion about their new Chancellor in 1933.
I can't blame the part of people who prefered to trust Pétain because it was the "best" choice. At least in the early stages of the fall of France.
In the end, the France Libre was right, and managed to contribute a lot for the Allies, and gives them a more heroic aspect of their acts as they've achieved the impossible sometimes.
A friend and I had both of our grand grand parents coming from the same region living through those times. His was in the Résistance we know that he was involved a lot in 1944 in Brittany but that's all. Mine on the other was in the Navy, he was onboard the Strasbourg battleship. He witnessed Mers-El-Kébir event and then, when the germans invaded the ports at the total occupation, since the French Navy under Vichy scuttled all ships in Metropolitan France, he couldn't pursue the war, and got back to his wife until the end of the war.
Both Grand grand parents weren't to deep in politics. One only wanted his country free, the other after the trauma just wanted to live his life peacefully with his loved one far from that war he hated so much (my mother told me he was very silent about those times,and at the rare occasions he would talk about it, he expressed every time his hate for the germans and the English, a bloodbath could have been avoided at Kébir and he was disgusted by what happened there.)
Yeah really great values from the guy who rolled back french values to pre-19th Century, rehabilitated the Dreyfuss antisemites and actively collaborated with the deportation of french jewish citizens.
@@differentboy9697 I was thinking about the following : "Travail, Famille, Patrie"
Maybe it's not to you, but for me, these valors are important. But as I've said, those were nothing but empty promises from Pétain because of the reasons you quote.
@@matsoudo5980 I think the french motto of liberty, equality and fraternity encapsuled already that. Petain just twisted that motto to create a autoritharian state
@@differentboy9697 Encapsuled ? Yes and no, they're just not the same. I'm not denying the fact that Pétain used "Travail, Famille, Patrie" just to lure people to trust him. And "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" is well ... I'm French so I'm use to it, and I'm definitely attached to this motto, but the other one, context apart is different and more personal, and to me, is as important inpactful in a different angle ... That's just what I wanted to express.
Vel' D'Hiv'
The history of France during the war, and the years leading up to it, is certainly enormously complex. I've always been annoyed by the popular myth that the French were "weak" -- anyone who knows French history and especially WW1 knows that is nonsense. I do believe that France was somehow a spent force in the 1930s, it never really recovered from the Great War and the political divisions were fatal to France in 1940. As for De Gaulle, say what you will but he was indisputably a great propagandist. Certainly there were French who actively fought for liberation with justice but it's simply a fact that many French were sympathetic to Naziism and the French history in the Holocaust is not good. In summary, war is complex and France's experience in WW2 certainly illustrates that. So that is the history we should remember, not the myth of total national resistance, nor French cowardice -- which is an unfair an incorrect stereotype.
Many more Jews were deported from smaller countries. 105000 from the Netherlands, the almost entire Jewish population, 450000 from Hungary, 340000 from Romania, 228000 from Baltic states, etc....Not even 90000 from France. Many French civilians were deported or even shot, for hiding Jews. Rotten deviant politicians and average folks are 2 different things. During 4 years, about 30000 French civilians hostages and Maquis fighters had been executed on the spot without any trial, just after their capture. It was not uncommon to shoot 30 or 40 civilians hostages taken at random, for only 1 Nazi officer or soldier killed.
ua-cam.com/video/dsvA0UkdRuw/v-deo.html
The vast majority of the 40 million French people of that time were mainly concerned with finding something to eat and surviving.
9:07 This photo was taken from Channel Island, the only British territory occupied by the German.
You say that it took decades for us to come to terms with Vichy. You're wrong, we're not finished with it. It's still very much a painfull wound in our society.
What are you talking about? Jewish medias and Jewish cinema industry talk about it every day.
on 9:21 the officer on the left looks German ? does not seem possible with the British officer at right ! Do you know the answer ?
@@rolandthomasset1713 The Germans occupied some English islands named Channel islands which are in the.... English Channel (indeed very fitting name).
The photo must have been taken on one of the islands.
France has contemporary problems to come to terms with.....many, many problems....
@@Charlimarteli
Yes, like the fact it's under total zionist control pushing for replacing the indigenous population by Africans.
You also have to consider the political situation from before hand. Tldr De Gaulle’s advocation for a modernized and more professional military had (fairly or otherwise) earned him a reputation for being a potential Military Fascist in some circles due to said polarization, so I see why some people might have thought his resistance early on might be an elaborate power grab of some form if they believed that.
As I understand, De Gaulle was not held in high regard in the miltary and it was pure luck that he was the most senior officer outside of France who was opposed to surrender. He was never a team player, which is difficult in the military and worse in politics where both Churchill and Roosevelt barely tolerated him. While they sought to work together to defeat Germany, De Gaulle's sole focus was France and her empire, so they regularly downgraded his status and his office was moved further and further away from Downing Street.
Degaulle did not try to pursue the war, he ran away. A big nosed coward who left his people and then pretended that he was part of the victory won by the Allies and the Resistance.
Very interesting but can I ask why the photograph of a police officer in the occupied Channel Islands was used?
I am an American who as a teen Agee lived in France as an exchange student. I studied in a public French lycée in the 1980s. In the history curriculum though they did teach in depth about the 3s Republic and Vichy France, I wouldn’t say they painted Petain or the SOB Laval in a negative way. This surprised me, and as that outspoken Américain, I made it a point out to the teacher what scumbags these guys were. I remember the teacher laughing and agreeing with me - she probably had been a child during the War. It just shows how decided France is and how much they like sweeping things under the rug. That said in a nearby town in Britanny where I lived there had been a friendly fire massacre by a US P51 Mustang that killed all the children in the square as a result of friendly fire/ collateral damage. It was a horrible time in human history and there was plenty of blame to go around. Great video summarizing a complicated subject. Well done!
In Italy, Allied fighter planes would deliberately strafe civilians in city streets and the outskirts. They would fly low and fire at them, women, children anyone. And they were so close they could see they were civilians. They would also fire at homes in residential areas.
Crashed allied pilots would be quickly captured by the Germans, since if taken by locals they would often be killed.
There is an astronomical difference between a tragic wartime accident and the clearly deliberate tyranny and betrayal committed by Vichy France. The 75,000 human beings that Petan swept away to the concentration camps were French citizens. That p-51 pilot was risking his life to get France back to the French people. Many complaints about the conduct of the liberation by the Allies were displaced shame from France's defeat and collaboration.
There are two islands in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence named Saint Pierre and Miquelon. They are off the coast of Newfoundland. According to the Treaty of Paris in 1763 they remained as part of metropolitan France as whaling stations after France lost her possessions in Canada. On Christmas Day, 1941the tiny Free French navy invaded these two islands and took it away from Vichy France. Bear in mind that these two islands were not giving aid to German U-boats. Both the Canadian and British governments knew that the USA took the Monroe Doctrine seriously. They would never have conducted a military action in the New World without discussing it with the American government first. Charles deGualle did not care. He said that if the Americans were to invade these two islands he would instruct his forces to fire upon them. Less than than three weeks after the bombing of Pear Harbor he dared the Americans to a fight. President Franklin Roosevelt despised him. As an aside every French citizen in these two islands must have made a lot of money selling booze to American gangsters when the USA had prohibition.
@@procrastinator41 What are you exactly talking about when you mentionned the deported? The question of war prisonners, political opponents, jews or forced labour are complet different topics.
every country sweep their bad things under the rug, it's well known in France that the US military committed atrocities against civilians wether it was intentional or not, american soldiers also raped a large number of women in normandy
07:01
"Saving" France... by selling her to the enemy, the occupier. And they dared to deem this as preferable to fight... whatever reasons they had, no matter whether I would have done the same or maybe even worse, I cannot bring myself to feel anything but shame and a hint of disgust towards many of my fellow countrymen of these years.
C'est dans ces moments critiques que les héros ou les traitres sont révélés, toi comme moi ne pourront jamais savoir dans quel camp nous sommes à moins d'y être confrontés un jour...
Two things can be true at the same time. Vichy France were national socialist collaborators and communists are terrible. It is a logical fallacy to say it’s one or the other
You're implying that all/most of Free France were communists--not even close to true. Anti-communism was an excuse the collaborationists used to try to justify their position. There might be a "legitimacy" debate, but there should be no debate over which side was morally preferable, Vichy or Free France.
Both sides hated communism. Heck, everyone back then hated communists. Why we fought on their side? Good question... Why we no longer hate them today? Hmm...
@davidsprenkle2641 Anglos not simp for commies challenge
These commies won against the fascists tell me was france better of under the Nazi yoke or is it better now
Great video! Tell us about the Dreyfus Affair.
I know Roosevelt originally wanted France to be treated as a defeated nation after the war rather than as one of the victors. I think that view was legitimate and within the allies' rights considering all the material aid the Vichy government gave to the Reich. The other view I think is also legitimate, de Gaulle and the Free French military and colonies also gave significant material support to the allies. Furthermore considering the liquidation of the Vichy regime by the Reich I would consider the Free French government as legitimate. Still that view has led to an unearned exoneration of France for it's participation in the holocaust and the wider war. We must not romanticize or exaggerate the small role of the Free French and pretend France was clean and innocent, the collaboration was willful, not coerced, Petain gave minimal resistance to the demands of the Reich and the French people largely went along with it. The point is this ,a crime was committed, this is undeniable. The question is whose guilty?
This deserves more likes
It was Churchill who wanted France as one of the victors fearing US dominance in post war Europe and I guess to avoid it becoming a Weimar Germany.
En réalité, Roosevelt a très très longtemps misé sur Pétain, qu'il appelait son "très cher ami'', puis sur Darlan et Giraud après le Débarquement en Afrique du Nord, car il savait qu'ils étaient plus dociles et manipulables qu'un De Gaulle, raide comme une barre d'acier.
Les US voulaient mettre la main sur l'empire colonial français, afin d'avoir un débouché pour leurs produits. Avec les Américains, il y a toujours le business en arrière-plan.
Churchill savait que si les Américains mettaient la main sur l'empire français pour le démanteler et établir leur domination, ceci serait ensuite au tour de l'empire colonial britannique. De là le plus grand soutien du premier ministre britannique au chef de la France Libre.
Pour le reste, la résistance et la collaboration, les choses sont beaucoup plus complexes. La majorité des Français n'étaient ni résistants, ni collaborateurs, mais cherchaient surtout à trouver à manger tous les jours, et à ne pas être pris dans une sale histoire.
Les Américains n'ont jamais été envahis, ni occupés, et n'ont jamais connu de destructions de guerre massives. Ça devrait les inciter à rester prudents.
"Possession is nine-tenths of the law." The petain vichy regime was the government until overthrown; downplay of this is a postwar "courtesy" to France.
A courtesy or a denial of the willingness of people to go along with Fascisim ?
Look at America today. A surprising amount of people are willing to go along with some terrible things and don't seem to have a problem with it. That's how it happens.
The Germans ended the Vichy France section after the Torch Landings
CHURCHILL: "The heaviest cross I have to bear is the Cross of Loraine".
@raypurchase801 maybe he was just fat
This video forgot to mention that the USA recognized Vichy France as the legitimate government. They forgot to mention Churchill bombed the French navy in North Africa which angered the French in Meis Kabir
Their navy were going to surrender to the Germans and Churchill gave them a chance to sail to allied ports. They were given a chance not to collabarate!
@@JohnSmith-ei2pz and yet the navy never surrendered to the German even in 1942 when they invaded the Free Zone. French Admiralty prefered to blow their ships than give them to the germans and as Churchill said himself Mers-El Kébir was one of the biggest mistake of the british in WW2, shifting public opinion who still view the British as allies to view them as ennemi by attacking French ships in French ports without any founded arguments...
@@leosimon241 Anyway u put it, Vichy was a very complicated situation . The French were never Axis and collaborators are not necessarily all quislings . Then u have Horthy in Hungary but he actually was Axis but not a Nazi collaborator .
It's been downhill for France since Caesar went through Gaul.
800 ad and the swearing in of Charlemagne the King of the Franks as the Holy Roman Emperor was Frances height of power and Prestige . After he died it was all division, war and splintering.
What about when *that* Corsican grabbed the crown?
@@awonoto true. He took all the way up to the Rhine, and reorganized the continent
Better thank the French and Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne, for defeating the Umayyad invasion at the Battle of Tours in October 732. If not, the history of Europe would have been much different under Islamic rule.
Napoléon has a different opinion...
Thanks for the Information not much is talked about the Vichy France and Free France. Mainly talked about Germany and Italy in Classes in Hight School and collage. not much talked about the Vichy France also Vichy and Free fought each other in Vichy French Syria and Lebanon 1941.
Britian and America disliked deGaulle enough to have a backup available if need to 'replace' him became necessary
Churchill knew and supported de Gaulle, Eisenhower distrusted him.
Ya he hated the Allies. This whole "this side vs that side" narrative is an easy brainwashing trick they use. "De Gaulle was a hero because he was against the other side". Such a low IQ take. He was basically a national socialist or authoritarian just like Germany and just like Vichy, but just didn't want German control and didn't blame the jews. He hated communism and even tried to go as extreme as banning mini-skirts.
@@methodeetrigueur1164 Churchill knew he was a POS! No won trusts the french. Agincort!
@@JohnSmith-ei2pz Posted by a hateful troll who doesn't assume and whose channel has been online for a week.
Canada's Prime Minister Pearson grew to dislike Charles as well. He had a gift that way.
St Helena !!? St Helena is a small British crown colony in the central Atlantic Ocean, it was never French . I believe St Pierre et Miquelon Islands near Canada shortly after the French defeat sided with the free French. That British policeman on Jersey looks silly here talking to the German officer too ( not in France!). Also it was hilarious French President Mitterrand lambasting Croatia wanting to be free in 1991 cos they were on the Axis side in ww2 while he himself was a Vichy official at the time and the Croatian Pres Tudjman was an officer in the Yugoslav partisans fighting the Germans and Italians!
St Helena was {and IS) definitely British. St Pierre et Miquelon fell under de Gaul's control on 25/12/ 1941. French India (Pondicherry etc.) was among the first to join France Libre along with the British-French Condominium of New Hebrides. This was followed by Chad and New Caledonia and then the rest of French Equatorial Africa (including the Cameroons).
Mitterand was in the resistance movement during ww2 his job in the vichy administration was a cover.
That's the thing about war; brings out the very worst in people, but perversely also innovation. Think of the leaps in aviation for example regarding the latter. It's easy to talk now, with the benefit of hindsight, but put yourself in the shoes of the people who lived then. Painful choices to make.
France was indeed a curious case study during WWII.
It’s only the reminder that facts are more important than ideology. Indeed you’ll find all the counterexamples you need against simple narratives on WWII (most state memorial propaguanda from today) when you look at the history of Vichy France.
The irony being they were both right, if france had resisted the populace would be killed greatly, if they resisted they would be punished and france crushed. But resisting from outside allowed resistance without endangering france. It is easy to look back and say they should have resisted, but the shock of losing so fast and german troops being in your country would scare you badly. I can see why people would agree to it at first.
I must've read about 300 of the comments. What I didn't see was any real context given to what happened to France during WWI. WWII began less than 25 years later. France suffered horrifically during WWI. Not just the number of French killed but the devastation of the land. People still die there from unexploded munitions more than a century later!
I think the legitimacy changed as the war went on. One argument against Vichy's legitimacy was the 3rd Republic's 1875 constitutional laws stated "the republican form of the government cannot be the object of a revision". Therefore, some argued after the war that the law of July 10th, 1940 was itself unconstitutional and by extension made the Vichy regime illegitimate. But certainly in 1940, a vast majority of French people thought Vichy was the only legitimate government.
As for Free France, they didn't have much legitimacy in the beginning, but as more colonies joined them, like French Equatorial Africa in 1940, they gained some. The turning point was probably in 1943, when all the Resistance movements fused in the National Council of the Resistance and swore allegiance to Free France, De Gaulle united the other French pro-Allied forces in North Africa under his banner and an assembly gathering all resistance movements and republican political parties was created in Allied-controlled Algeria. From that point on I think there's no contest of legitimacy.
Vichy govt had better legal standing and therefore legitimacy, but it is the winner who wrote history, and FF is the eventual winner.
Petain's government had the legitimate claim. The head of the French government appointed him to the position. Ideologies cloud everything , hind sight is 20/20. The every day French citizen just wanted themselves and their loved ones to survive and made their decisions accordingly.
I really love learning history, makes me respect the countries history. Knowledge is power after all. Thank you
[Germany invades southern France]
France: "Hey, that wasn't the deal!"
Germany: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
There is no dignity in becoming totalitarian -- Pétain, "the Savior of Verdun" in 1916, should have known better than to accommodate Nazi demands in 1940. As it turned out, it didn't prevent France from being totally taken over (never a surprise when one strikes a deal with Fascists). The fact that dignity was still being carted out as an excuse 30+ years later is reprehensible. Luckily, the senior-year ("Terminale") curriculum of 1986-87 had taken care of that -- I know because I was an exchange student in France that year, and the instruction was rather unkind to "the Chief of the French State."
The main reason I believe Free France to be the legitimate government is because whether or not signing the armistice was legal or not or was voted by parliament; it was not of free choice.
Both the signing and the vote were both compelled due to having lost against Nazi Germany. Thus choice was simple; get along with Hitler and get something, or stay until the end and get nothing.
When something is compelled like that; it can't be considered legitimate.
That would make any armistice signed by any government de facto illegitimate
Not only that. Most of the ones who voted against Petain were later persecuted. Not a big sign for legitimacy
by that logic no surrender treaty can be legitimate even the ww1 treaty
@@quanghuyvo6112 exactly
@@quanghuyvo6112 Think of it this way: under the Geneva Convention prisoners of war, despite being legitimately under the coersion and capture by the enemy, soldiers still had recogniton of their right (and duty) to resist. They not only had to be taken care of much like the enemy country's own soldiers, but if they escaped they could not just be killed on sight - they had to be brought back to captivity and only face "disciplinary punishment".
My whole point is; it's not the duty of the citizens under coersion to maintain the surrender as it is the right of all people to be free and independent and not be subject to arbitrary punishment in violation of basic human rights.
Ultimately, de Gualle was the more heroic. That seems undeniable. That said, I can't help but sympathize with Petain and the Vichy. The Germans held all the leverage in the form of 2 million french POW's, a handicapped French army (limited to 100k troops), and direct control of the majority of France's territory. When Germany asked for something, Petain felt that he had no choice but to give it while doing the best he could for the French people in areas that the Germans didn't care about. He shouldn't have collaborated and forced the Germans to come out and use brute force, as they eventually did anyways. But hindsight is 20/20 and he probably daw himself as making the best of a bad situation
I didn't know about this incredible division inside France, thanks for all the insights and keep up with this interesting content.
Could you also do a video about the downfall of Italy in ww2 and the chaos after the armistice with the allies?
France was a deeply divide society prior to WWII. There was even an attempted right-wing coup. I believe that this polarization, this lack of compromise and social cohesion was a major factor in the German victory.
Sorry, but this video is premised on an error. France's division was physically between occupied and Vichy France, but the two competing ruling governments of France were Petain's Vichy government in southern France and DeGaulle's "Free French" HQ'd in London (with some territorial occupation in Africa). NOT occupied and unoccupied France as shown at the outset.
"Now embrace your French nature and quietly surrender!" - Steve Irwin from Epic Rap Battles of History
Lmao
Cringe
@jean-raouldu2918 you can't even control Algerians in Paris!
What happened to the %75 of French soldiers that wanted to return to France?
Most of these soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk in the beginning of June 1940, the Battle of France wasn't finished yet so they were send back to France to continue the fight against the Wehrmacht until the armistice (the 22nd of June)
The fall of France was a HUGE trauma and a HUGE surprise even for Germany ...
Pétain want the same for France than Germany just After 1ww ...and avoid Germanization as Poland invaded.
I've wondered sometimes what would have happened here in Australia in 1940 if we had been a former french, not British, colony. A low level civil war is my guess.
Imagine French Australians. Makes me shudder...
Likely would have sided with the Vichy regime and acquiesced to Japanese control of SE Asia as the Vichy French in IndoChina did in WW2.
@@bitshox1215 Would have been like Algerian French I suppose .
Its interesting that you say De Gaulle still alluded to France's power as an empire and coloniser when trying to gain support. Even though every thing that was happening to them was due to another country's empire building. Sounds like Europe is getting some serious payback.
Vichy french forces fought against USA in North Africa. Specially in Casablanca.
It's logical. Vichy was on the Axis side. And don't make it bigger. Not even 1 week of fightings, with relatively light casualties. A few hundred killed, and as many wounded.
Vichy cannot be fully understood without the chronology of the war. Indeed the Vichy state of 1940 is not the same as the one of 1941, and becomes much more different as the war goes especially when the situation worsen on the german side after 1943, who began to put more and more pressure. In 1944, Germany has almost total control of the Vichy state (even if the free zone was invaded since November 1942, there were still bits of sovereignty).
Politically it’s was also a total mess. One sure thing you can’t say about Vichy is that it was the typical battle between fascist and anti-fascist or patriots against pacifists, it was much more complicated than that (and simply not true!). If you read/speak french, i’ve gathered all kinds of documentaries/archives/lessons on this period in this playlist : ua-cam.com/play/PLmSzftHmGc7MasNZFEyPOwCsFQmG0DRI6.html
I suggest in particular one France Inter podcast about the entire life of Philippe Pétain (in the playlist above, 10 episodes of 1 hour) “le fantôme de Philippe Pétain” (2022).
Interesting fact. Australia had diplomatic relations with the Vichy regime and Sir Roden Cutler was awarded the VC for his actions in Syria against the Vichy Forces.
Hmm🤔🧐 didn't know that
@@ryanundead1383 You may find this book very interesting. “England‘s last war against France: Fighting Vichy 1940 - 1942” by Colin Smith
@@guffmulderEOD3119 good lookin out I'll def look into that
There was also a US consulate in Vichy until 1942.
I was just reading Eisenhower's memoir _Crusade in Europe_ last month and I was surprised how contentious the Allied debate on who would replace the Vichy as they liberated French territory.
Roosevelt saw De Gaulle as a potential dictator. Churchill admired him but considered that de Gaulle's intransigence in preserving the independence of France was detrimental to the war effort of the allies. De Gaulle wanted to erase the shame of 1940 by making France participate in the crushing of Nazism and restore it to its rank of great power. De Gaulle opposed with all his might the establishment of an allied military government in France or of a provisional government whose members would have been chosen by the Anglo-Americans. These disagreements had the strange consequence that Moscow recognized Free France as the legitimate government of France before the United States.
@@bernardmerveille2315 S'il n'en n'avait tenu que de Roosevelt, la France aurait été sous AMGOT et probablement divisée après la guerre. Je ne suis pas certain que les Français réalisent à quel point ils auraient pu perdre leur pays.
@Jean-Louis Lalonde In what world would France have been divided? By whom and for which powers? Germany and Austria was due to both sides meeting there. Japan wasn't divided because it capitulated long before any Soviets could reach it.
@@stephenjenkins7971 Japan threw in the towel not because of the 2 atom bombs dropped on them , It was the Soviet invasion of the northern islands that put the wind up them and remembering that Koniev pulped the Jap army in
Manchuria.
@@unclestuka8543 The Soviet invasion that almost failed despite how close it was to the Eurasian landmass and which the Japanese islands were hundreds of times further. The Soviets did NOT have the means to invade the main islands.
More to the point, the Japanese is an island nation; its mainland territories are only possible with its naval superiority. The Manchurian Army was already long crippled due to its inability to be reinforced by the Japanese islands due to the US Navy.
Basically; the USSR was completely unnecessary.
Several must be remembered as to why so many people supported petain
1) after ww1 that literally bled out France (just go to any French village and so how many died during the war) and a humiliating defeat in 6 weeks , petain solution seemed like a better option
2) The British, that were already not very liked in France for historical reasons and more recently for their attitude in Dunkerque towards French troops , fearing a german takeover of the French fleet unilaterally attacked the French fleet a mers el Kebir, whiteout warning de Gaulle and killing thousands of French sailors, which helped a lot the anti Allie’s propaganda machine of Vichy
3) petain and his regime floated a sort of myth that the surrender was just a ruse to prepare for a revenge attack against, which explains why even many anti German military Frenchman stayed loyal to Vichy for so long. In November 1942 with the German invasion of the Vichy zone, they realized it was a lie and it explains why so many French troops in Africa later rallied the free French forces
But wasn't the attitude of a certain French admiral (Darlan ) unhelpful in getting things
avoided. The mixed loyalties and ambitions of those in power/influence in France wasn't helpful
to such situations when so much was at stake.
French troops resisted allied landings in N Africa
Reading the comments I see no one has a clue including the producers of this video about WW2 France and the post war problems.
Yep a lot of people forget how many people in France were anti-British and anti-Allies and surprisingly pro-Vichy. Obviously not everyone was in the resistance or supported de Gaulle. I think unifying France after its liberation required the myth of resistance
From a British perspective, I can see it wouldn't have been easy for France. Looking back, you have to ask, would the Allies have been able to build up a big enough force to liberate France if the US hadn't gotten involved? And if not, then what?
It is easy to bash France for cooperating with nazi Germany. However the people governing the anglo islands in the Channel (Jersey and Guernesey) cooperated with the new German administration and many Jews were sent to Auschwitz during the war. Many women after the war had to be protected from the locals because they had engaged in relations with the Germans. However I don't know whether they had their heads shaved like some women in France.
Waste of allied lives saving the traitors!
8 weeks, not 8 months.
Thanks, Jason. I'm glad someone said it! Although, it was more like six weeks.
Collaborating with an autocratic invader is weak, thus illegitimate, in my morality.
Here we go again, portraying the Jew as victim,when at the time many new them as the begeters of store and division,established at their first international conference,a step inline with Those "articles" at present most near to fulfilment.
Your French accent (to me anyway) seems 'parfait'! Good job with this one👍Historical hindsight is 20/20 but the bottom line is if my country (NZ) was invaded by an oppressive foreign power, I believe I would resist and fight where I could with staunch patriots, regardless of what our prime minister said.
Too bad that none of you have guns.
We all like to believe that we would be on the side of the resistance, but trust me, things are not easy when you're stuck in the middle of a fight and that you are requested to take side. Imagine the courage de Gaulle must have had to fly away to England to continue the fight when it appeared that everything was lost. He put his family in danger, lost his house (occupied and damaged by German soldiers) and wages and was sentenced to death by the Vichy government.
@@jean-louislalonde6070 Yes I have been studying de Gaulle's life & speeches for French classes - he was a giant among men for sure, who really loved his country and 'saved France' again as a politician years after the war. I can understand why many people sided with Petain initially but I believe as the war went on (with the Milice & deportations etc.) a lot changed their minds and agreed that de Gaulle was right - and saw the Vichy motto of 'travail, famille, patrie' que c'était en vérité: terreur, famine, prison ! Vive la France🙂
@@atlanticrf haha plenty of us have guns in NZ mate. Not handguns or AR's perhaps (limited to club/range use), but hunting semi-auto rifles of all types - one of the highest per capita in the western world I believe. Our liberal government is making licencing more of a process, but hunting is still a BIG sport here, with no real gun violence - long may it continue👍🙂
Sorry, but his French accent is not good.
Regardless of values (don’t kill me people), Vichy did have a more legitimate claim to power. That is undeniable. However, that didn’t help them in the end 11:14
Someone who speaks with the benefit of vast knowledge and experience is Authoratative. This is a good thing.
Someone who can brook no opposition is an Authoritarian. This is generally considered to be not so good.
Great works guys, now can you please cover the Battle of Vercors which was the largest battle fought between the French resistance and the Germans only weeks before Operation Dragoon. For more info read Vercors 1944 by Peter Lieb.
People love a winner. Had Germany won the war, the French would have supported Pétain's decision to side with Germany. But since the Allied won, the French were glad to see de Gaulle was fighting and winning with them. Anglophones often like to mock the French for surrendering to nazi Germany but they always forget the following: Free French fought in Africa, in Italy, liberated southern France (landing in Provence), liberated Paris and part of eastern France and carved up a slice of Germany for post war occupation. Living in Montreal, I met 40 years ago the granddaughter of general Maxime Weygand who was given the impossible task of fighting Germany when the war was well engaged and almost already lost. She did not want to talk about it for obvious reasons.
@jean-louislalonde6070 was she still around today? I assume gran daughter is
when it comes to legitimacy it would probably be vichy france
when it comes to morality its free france
the image at 9:07 is a britsh office with a nazi in the channel islands....
Difficult to think of a bigger fall from grace in history, than that of Petain's. Going from being idolised as the Lion of Verdun, only to end up being a Vichy puppet dictator...
The picture at 9.09 shows an English policeman whilst talking about the French police abducting people. I don't think this is what was intended
I’m guessing this is an error? Possibly showing a British police officer talking with an occupying German army officer on one of the Channel Islands, since this was the only British territory to be occupied by the Nazis AFAIK?
I've always disagreed with many Americans on DeGaulle. Been an admirer for year. He had a bad rep with the American govt and others. But to me, he was a true French patriot who was willing to fight the Germans at any cost. France needed that more than anything in 1940. The old, washed-up General officers of the French Army led them to ruin. DeGaulle was an innovator who wanted to change French doctrine before WWII. They should have listened to him.
He was definitly stubborn and difficult to deal with in some occasions. But honestly Churchill is one other of this kind and war lead harsh people to rise up in general.
In an other hand during the Cuba crisis he fully supported Kennedy.
@@BzhToine Great points. DeGaulle's relationship with the Kennedy Admin was remarkable. Very close.
easy to say now with hindsight...ofc
Agreed. Being a rough personality to deal with does not undermine that he was one of the heroes of France, willing to oppose the Nazi's instead of becoming a puppet of one of the most evil regimes in history.
My only gripe is he didn't ensure Petain and every last collaborator faced the firing squad for betraying their people.
@@camm8642 I completely understand why his contemporaries had a negative view of him. He did give the prima donna vibes. I do try to put myself in their shoes.
But he had to unyielding in his resolve. For that, he should always be held in the highest regard, regardless of the different factions within France.
Very interesting video, but I think there is an important point you forgot to mention about franco-british relations. The reason why siding with the British was so annoying was that, I think, many French at this time did not see the British as reliable for some reasons :
- The historical past between France and Great Britain did not encourage the trust between the French and the British especially since the British often sided in favor of Germany during the interwar period which led France to agree to German development and rearmament.
-The French since Dunkirk saw the British as traitors because they decided to withdraw from France when the French Grand Headquarters was organising the last possible offensive to cut the main German forces from their supply lines. Because of this retreat, the French thought that this "Perfide Albion" abandonned France to the hands of the Germans. This was heavily reinforced by Vichy's propaganda and the British attack at Mers-El-Kebir.
As such the French could think that even if the Allies won in the end France would be relegated as a puppet state of Anglo-saxon countries, fear which has almost been real with the USA heavily supporting Giraud to be at the head of the new French government.
US also had "French Dollars" already printed in prevision of France liberation.
Actually the worst kind of conflict is civil war -> when neighbours "turn onto each other - on the "orders" of a few untouchables" - in this regard Petain and DeGaulle were the same ... in the end 90+% of the people suffered in some way ... luckily the large scale conflict settled after WW2 ... but the dissolution of Yugoslavia ... a very similar story in the end ... the effects are still felt today ...
Charles de gaulle great leader
He was also the tallest of the WW 2 leaders.
Nope
He was a pain in the arse to the Allied effort
@@andym9571 >He was a pain in the arse to th-ACK!
@@andym9571 british
St Helena is a British colony but apparently the French government oversees the property on the island where Napoleon lived
St Helena was {and IS) definitely British. St Pierre et Miquelon fell under de Gaul's control on 25/12/ 1941. French India (Pondicherry etc.) was among the first to join France Libre along with the British-French Condominium of New Hebrides. This was followed by Chad and New Caledonia and then the rest of French Equatorial Africa (including the Cameroons).
One of the thing for De Gaulle was that some allied countries saw vichy France as the legitimate state like the us did at one point, and try to undermine his efforts like during the North African campaign in which they tried to put a vichist defector in charge...
Excellent point that few folk now.
@@MrBagpipes strangely, the said vichist defector died in what could be considered to be dubious circumstances
Well, one of my French teachers told us back in the 1980s, that before D-Day, it was very difficult to impossible to find anyone in the French Resistance, but after D-Day, "everyone" had been in the French Resistance. So, it may be a matter of perspective. From a purely International Law view, the Third Republic was the legitimate and elected government of France, thus making the armistice, or surrender, a legally binding agreement, therefore Vichy France was the legal one. However, from a purely moral stance, the Free French did have a much more humane approach. In my case, my side would have been the Free French.
For information, about 30000 French civilian hostages and Maquis fighters had been executed on the spot without any trial just after their capture. It was not uncommon to shoot 30 or 40 civilian hostages, for only 1 NazI officer or soldier killed. A big part of these executions took part before DDAY. Anglosphere always put DDAY on the table, but this operation was only a 3 months operation out of 5 years of war.
From my outsider point of view netheir side had any claim to rule outside of values and both were petty warlords... Although I have to say Petain was voted in by their parliament which made him slightly mode legitment or even the only choice if you believe in total law and demcrocy... But De gaulle made for a better ally to the allies and was better at being a warlord at least.
Just note that a good part of the parliamentaries who were in favor of keeping fighting were already boarding boats to go in exile in Africa when the vote occured and discovered that this vote was going to happen to late to counter it.
The Paris Police actively participated in the round up of Jews just two weeks before they went on strike in support of the Resistance and the liberation of Paris in 1944. Truly a nation divided.
Actively is actually not true, there is a very good and recent book about the police of Vichy during the war and especially their role during the Vel d’Hiv round up in 1942, written by French historian Laurent Joly who goes very far into the subject, i suggest it to you
To my understanding this is still debated among the French which is called the Sword and Shield debate. Petain was the "shield" that prevented France from becoming like other countries the Germans took over while deGaul was the "sword" that fought back when the time was right.
Look at france now though. Was the sword worth it?
@OliverNorth9729 no
@@OliverNorth9729 yes
Thanks for telling about those things that nobody else talks about
Thanks for another great video, and for speaking about these confused/confusing events.
A few small clarifications regarding the French forces in England which requested to be sent back to France to "serve" Pétain's regime:
1. By mid/late June 1940, there were only a few thousand of them left in England, the vast majority of the 125,000 French troops evacuated at Dunkirk had already been sent back to France in early June. So 75% of very few people isn't much, in the end.
2. French soldiers (in England or France) had absolutely no idea what was going on or was going to happen. Most thought/hoped they would simply be demobilised and sent back to their homes and families.
3. In late June, and the days following Pétain's call to cease fighting, there was still no such thing as a "Vichy Regime". The situation in France was utterly confused and chaotic. The new regime only started to take form on 10th July.
The French population rallied behind Pétain because of his prestige and reassuring figure, and because they needed some stability within the whole general mess and catastrophy, but had no idea what was to come or what Pétain had in store for them and the country.
4. About the 10th July vote, there is a common misconception that the French parliament voted to give Pétain "full powers", as in "complete control of the country". Yet that is untrue.
They voted to give Pétain full powers specifically to "draft a new constitution, create new parliamentary chambers, and propose legislation which would be discussed and ratified by the parliamnetary chambers". None of the above ever materialised.
Parliament was first indefinitely suspended, then simply abolished.
Pétain was never, ever, given "all powers" to become a dictator with a complete control of the country. What he did was a coup, taking advantage of the defeat.
The constitutional text on which the French parliament voted on 10th July is available online and really short, so it will be easy for anyone to check and compare with what actually happened after the vote.
5. Vichy was composed of people who hated the Republic and liberal values. People who had been hoping and waiting all their life, Pétain included, for the right opportunity to get rid of the Republic and implement their ultra-conservative, authoritarian, reactionary agenda.
The 1940 defeat gave them that opportunity. Once this was achieved, they were hoping to become the favoured province in the new Europe under Nazi control, in order to keep the power they had gained by sustaining the illusion of "independence", which explains the majority of their political moves and collaboration between 1940 and 1944.
Authoritarian and authoritative getting a bit muddled there.
Don’t forget that évent the US government refused to recognize de Gaulle’s and FFF legitimity until 1942, although they remained on allied side on the battle field. The Roosevelt administration kept diplomatic relationship with Vichy’s government, and after the landing in North Africa tried to promote a Vichyst leader against de Gaulle, Amiral Darlan and General Giraud.
The US Navy destroyed the Vichy fleet during the sea Battle of Casablanca. So that said alot about how the US looked at Vichy France; not very favorable.
Interesting topic!
Well researched.
Again 👌👍🏻
I read about two French Foreign Legions were fighting against each other.smh
Not only french foreign legion, the overall army fought each others like in middle east.
Small comment in regard to your introductory statements. The Battle of France was not fought in trenches which you refer to around the 45 second mark of the video. The nature of blitzkrieg ensured that in this battle there would be no trenches.
In that it’s something almost no one ever thinks about, that’s a fair assumption. However if you think about how the Vichy military resisted the allies in North Africa than it’s no surprise.
Heard an in-depth analysis on the state of France years back saying that the political condition/divide of the country was so bad that if WW2 did not happen France almost certainly would have gone into civil war with itself. Would have been very horrible if they did but I imagine if that did all happen then it would have kicked off another Great War in its self with major powers taking sides much like the American civil war which almost became the 1st World War.
I would think London would want nothing more than to destroy france and taking her goodies so they would support both sides until Oblivion. The Soviets and other Fascist/Communist like minded countries would help Vichi France while Germany if the Fascist never gained power and they went into a Republic mindset like they did with Bismarck would help Northern Frances De Gaul. It would put America into a precarious situation wanting to stay out and before you know it the “supporters” start fighting each other causing a Great War.
Would love to hear thoughts/ideas about this situation and its probability.
Why vichy france was evil😡😡😡: they were mean to jews😥😭
No, Vichy was a lap dog of German scum.
@@bmyers7078 why germany was evil😡😡😡: they were mean to jews😥😭
@Flawless839 nice France nice Germany
Funny though, you only ever hear of French old boys having been in the resistance never Vichy..............
11:05: De Gaulle's is smarter, saner even. However, not gonna lie, barring the Nazi buttkissing and damning anti-Semitism, Petain had some good societal morals at first. Extra emphasis on "had," though, and not even his heroics from the First World War could have redeemed him.
The latter.
Playing both sides would seem fitting, although I'll be overseas.
@michaelandreipalon359 what morals?
Did you know that Vichy supported the resistance in 1940 ? Things are much more complicated than we can imagine. And the situations are very contradictory depending on the years of the events.
This is not the whole story. The Resistance was actually a groups of different political ideologues, who often hated and fought each other. Vichy helped some groups aligned with their views, but it was middle ranked officers or managers rather than direction from Petain.
In the fighting in North Africa, Australian forces were operating alongside French forces. There is the story, from the Riverland in South Australia, of a town's lads that went to war. Only a couple returned. But what struck sore was that a patrol of them weren't killed fighting Germans or Italians. They were on patrol when the French changed sides. Going between posts, they expected to be received warmly by their French allies. Unbeknownst to them, the French in their sector had switched allegiances and were now Vichy. The French opened up on the Australians when they came in sight...and only a couple of blokes made it back to Allied lines. Hence why, to the Rats and others who served in North Africa, the saying was: you can trust a German, you can trust an Italian: you can trust they are your enemy; but you can never trust a Frenchman. I was lucky enough to know a Bren Gunner from Swan Reach in my youth, from whom I heard that story. He was one of the few survivors of that patrol - because he had the heavy gun, and was slower than the others.
Ridiculous
Stupid reflexion. Soldiers are normally on the side of their government but some changed side because of their values. It's not about being "unreliable".
Glad the Australians didn't buy those French Submarines, they could have been very unreliable.
If I had been french at the time...I would of followed Petain, freeing France from the internal plight of socialism/communism would of been my main priority!.... especially after the upheaval of the Spanish civil war !
Yea bro communism is the main threat when fascists are occupying your capital city
I don't know the correct terminology but apparently a situation exists where the person who is being bullied turns against it's saviour and sides with the bully possibly for feeling inadequate
when and who make goule a general ?