France's Dark Years - Essay Example

FRANCE THE DARK YEARS Term Paper Number of Words France the dark years Introduction The years between 1940 and 1944 defined thedarkest years in the French history. Historians have highlighted that the four years placed France under immense pressure because there were so many events defining them. Some historians consider the four years’ worth erasing from their history. A close consideration of the aftermath of the dark years, France had registered over 650,000 workers compelled to work for the Germans. In addition, over 30,000 French civilians succumbed to death during the resistance. Over 75,000 Jews from France lost their lives during the anti-Semitic ventures of the Nazi Germany. There were over 60,000 French civilians deported to Germany and living in concentration camps. Therefore, there is a valid reason why many historians denote the four years as extremely dark for France. Notably, the four years defined the German occupation in France, a factor that placed half of France under the Germans. Worth noting is the fact that these four years formed part of the second world war when Germans needed allies and resources from other countries in an effort to defeat the United States and Soviet Union. Worst still, German was under Hitler’s leadership, and the occupation of France by Germans, translated into extended control over France by Hitler. The rising of the Vichy regime, which governed the half of France not under German rule, is also a critical aspect of the four dark years. This paper will discuss the main events that defined the dark years in France. Most importantly, the paper will give special focus to the Vichy regime, as well as the resulting national revolution. The Origin of the Vichy Regime The beginning of the four dark years in France was marked by the defeat of France in the Second World War. France had only been on the battlefield for six weeks, and the resulting military defeat proved to be highly catastrophic. At that point and time, France needed to find a viable solution to solve its military defeat. Many historians have blamed the communist who encouraged France to participate in the war. Such historians argue that the war was unnecessary for France. Other historians have been more critical, arguing that the factors of the 1930s contributed to the defeat in the 1940s. For example, Anthony Adamthwaite in his work titled Grandeur & Misery: Frances Bid for Power in Europe 1914-1940, highlighted that the defeat of France was related to the factors from the early 1920s. Notably, Adamthwaite believes that France did not have the necessary will to enjoy the victory of 1918. Other historians have pointed out the attitudes exhibited by the French people in the 1930s also contributed to the 1940 defeat. In the 1930s, the French people harboured attitudes such as fear, prejudices, and other behavioural patterns that led to the defeat.1 The French people focused on their loss from the war instead of celebrating the victory. In the years that followed the First World War, the French people did not manage to get over the physical and psychological effects of the First World War. Therefore, when it came to 1940, the French were unwilling to participate in war. Historians such as Weber believe that the disposition of France in the 1930s, especially due to the effects of the First World War, as well as pessimism resulting from the great depression, served to paralyse France. According to Weber, France was not in a position to make any decision regarding its relationship with Hitler. After suffering from the aftermath of the Fist World War, France was unwilling to pursue the same strategies it pursued in 1914. For this reason, the nation chose to promote peace. As highlighted above, France had suffered a catastrophic military defeat. Therefore, it needed to work closely with Germany. Worth noting is the fact that France had been fighting from North America in 1940. The defeat placed France in a chaotic situation. Hitler ordered the Germans to invade France since the defeat had led to a defenceless situation. At that critical time, the French government could no longer be stationed in Paris, but was moved to Bordeaux. Notably, German forces found their way into Paris on 14th June in 1940. France had only two choices at that critical time. One of the options was to continue the fight, but that was an impossibility considering the catastrophic defeat.2 Therefore, France settled for the second option, which involved requesting for an armistice with the Germans. Worth noting is the fact that France settled on a diplomatic way of dealing with Hitler in an effort to promote peace. Critics have argued that the option that France chose comprised its national pride. Many people opined that France was in a capacity to prevent the German invasion using force. Worst still, some critics have argued that the French government practically begged Hitler for the armistice. For this reason, some French people were not impressed by the decision by the French government to surrender. However, the country was facing a critical situation, and the surrender to the German invasion translated to a shock for the country. Many people had believed that the French army was strong enough to stage an opposition against the Germans. However, the French government considered the situation and opted to surrender. After the surrender to the Germans, they occupied half of France, leaving the other half unoccupied.3 The unoccupied half is the region that saw the rising of the Vichy regime. Notably, the prime minister of France Paul Reynaud opted to step down before the surrender. After stepping down, he passed on his responsibilities to a veteran of the First World War named Marshal Philippe Pétain. Pétain was regarded highly by the French people and held the title of Victor of Verdun. Pétain exhibited the conviction that an armistice was the best option for France at that time. Therefore, on 22nd June of 1940, a Franco-German armistice was eventually signed. After the signing of the armistice, France faced the realities of the conditions placed by Hitler in it. For example, signing the armistice led to the demilitarization of France and gave the Germans the freedom to occupy the Northern and coastal regions, as well as Paris. The southern region was left unoccupied by the Germans, and it became a semi-autonomous regime. Vichy regime was the name of the semi-autonomous regime led by Pétain. Upon the establishment of the Vichy regime, Pétain transferred the French government to Vichy. Worth noting is the fact that Vichy was in a central geographical position in the southern region, and it was the only town with favourable infrastructure. More specifically, the Vichy town had the modern telephone system and numerous hotel rooms. Therefore, it was easy for Pétain to modify the hotel rooms to become ministerial offices.4 A few weeks after the armistice was signed, Pétain would receive powers allowing him to serve as the head of the French state. His deputy was Pierre Laval, who had served as a prime minister before and had a remarkable experience in politics. Pétain regularly reshuffled his cabinet in his efforts to introduce a national revolution. Pétain had popularity in the Vichy regime because of his reputation in the First World War. Therefore, many people supported him. However, some French people believed that the formation of the Vichy government served as evidence of the government failing them. Therefore, they were against the Vichy government. Such individuals would eventually establish a resistance movement. After the German invasion, the founders of the resistance movement opined that France was in a position to fight back and drive away the German forces. Therefore, Charles de Gaulle, who would eventually become the leader of the resistance movement, urged the French people to stage a fight against the Germans. He addressed the French people on 18th June 1940.5 The occupied regions of France responded positively to his advice. However, the Vichy regime did not exhibit interest in fighting against the Germans because they viewed the armistice as the best solution. A close analysis of the history of the Vichy regime reveals that it emerged in 1934. On 6th February 1934, a group of people staged a riot in Paris that led to the rejection of the elected government. For this reason, the riots resulted in opposition to the left wing of the government. At that time, prominent people in the government had proven to be highly corrupt. An administrative reshuffle occurred in the Paris police, triggering the riots of 1934. The rioters were against the parliament and resulted in a remarkable change in the French politics. In 1936, a coalition comprising of both the left and right wing members won the elections. However, the prime minister was a socialist. The rioters who caused a change in 1934 were regarded as fascists, although they never accepted the claims. For this reason, historians have argued that the individuals who rioted in 1934 formed the Vichy regime in 1940. Notably, there were leagues such as Solidarite Franchise and Jeunesses Patriotes, who preferred an authoritarian government to replace the Third Republic. There are still debates concerning whether the leagues were actually fascists or whether they just admired fascist ideologies.6 Worth noting is the fact that Laval, who found his way to the prime minister in the Vichy regime, believed in fascism. He did not act in support of parliamentary democracy. For this reason, a short while after the establishment of the cabinet, Laval influenced senators and other prominent politicians into dissolving the government. Worth noting is the fact that Pétain supported the idea. Laval had been working as a socialist and had developed remarkable competencies in negotiating deals. In his opinion, an autocratic political regime was a better tool to handle the Germans. Since an autocratic regime believes in a dictatorship, none of the French people would be against the government. Therefore, Laval and Pétain opined that the authoritarian government would stand strong against the Nazi Germany because it would have a better negotiating ground.7 Laval convinced other politicians that the parliamentary system was ineffective because it would introduce divisions making France a weaker state. He opined that France needed a united, strong power that could measure up to Nazi Germany. Therefore, on July 10th, 1940, the two chambers voted for the dissolution of the third republic. It was at this point that Pétain and Laval took control under the Vichy regime. Worth noting is the fact that the formed regime sought to be monocratic with one individual having remarkable power. For this reason, the individual with power over the state would be in a position to make critical decisions. Therefore, Pétain and Laval abolished some of the offices that belonged to the Third Republic such as the office of the president. In the established regime, Pétain had limitless powers. However, he relied on advice from his close allies. The Vichy Regime and the National Revolution After establishing the Vichy regime, Pétain and Laval focused on a national revolution in the first two years. Many historians have been keen to note that the two leaders indulged in different activities and introduced activities that promoted a national revolution.8 Worth noting is the fact that Pétain and Laval relied on advisers and ministers who helped them design ambitious programs that sought to restore France to an era of glory. Before the crises that began in the early 1920s, France had enjoyed a measure of success in different aspects. Therefore, the Vichy regime needed to restore a successful French government. Both Pétain and Laval attributed the military defeat of France to disastrous policies that had governed France in the years before the war. The same policies were responsible for the collapse of the France government, a factor that introduced a salient need for change. Although some critics argue that the National revolution had a direct link to French fascism, some historians have highlighted that Pétain and Laval sought to re-establish France and promote the growth of the society.9 Notably, Pétain and Laval modelled the national revolution to fit in the traditional and conservative ideologies that had defined the society before. Evidently, both Pétain and his close allies relied on the fact that the previous policies had brought forth military defeat and destabilized the government to introduce a new set of ambitious programs. As mentioned above, Pétain and his close supporters were against the Third Republic and its policies. After establishing an authoritarian regime, Pétain had gained full legislative and executive powers without limits. Therefore, he was in a perfect position to introduce the national revolution comprising of new policies.10 Actually, Pétain was not in support of the term revolution. On the contrary, he regularly termed the changes as ‘national renovation’. During the French revolution, France adopted the motto ‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity’ as the guiding principles of the French society. However, Pétain and his supporters introduced a new symbol of the republican heritage and the national renovation. The new motto was highly conservative, and it focused on work, family, and fatherland.11 In his efforts to implement the national revolution, Pétain sought to redefine the national identity of France. As highlighted above, the new motto adopted new values that comprised of work and family. Therefore, the family would form a central tenet of the national revolution. Contrary to the radical views of the Third Republic, Pétain placed emphasis on the importance of the countryside in the definition of the national identity. Notably, Pétain opined that the urban life was under threat by capitalists who had moved into France and defined a new class of people regarded as the popular front. In the view of the Vichy regime, the popular front comprised of foreigners who did not have any justification for being in France. Therefore, he introduced the emphasis in the countryside against the urban lifestyle.12 In addition, the Vichy town was located in a central position at the boundaries of the occupied and unoccupied regions. Most importantly, it defined the middle of the French countryside. Therefore, Pétain and Laval were keen to highlight such aspects in their emphasis on the countryside. They highlighted that France had received numerous foreigners, mainly from Italy and Spain, who had occupied the major cities in pursuit of opportunities. One of the reasons that triggered the increasing rates of immigrants into France was the fact that the country’s economy had destabilized, and birth rate had declined immensely. In the view of the Vichy regime, France needed to adopt principles and values that would repair the society and restore its previous glories. In their efforts to promote life in the countryside, leaders of the Vichy regime urged many French people to occupy the countryside. They convinced them that it was justifiable to leave the cities and reoccupy their mythical homes.13 The emphasis on fatherland was placed to convince the French people that there was a salient need to reoccupy their ancestral land. Pétain and his supporters introduced new ideologies that sought to reintroduce the middle-aged provinces that existed in France. The central focus of the Vichy regime was to create a link between the country’s remarkable and successful past and the chaotic present situations. In order to implement such a link, the Vichy regime ensured that it brought forth policies that reflected those of the middle age. In pursuit of the national revolution, Pétain, Laval, and their supporters sought to reintroduce the old system of governance. In the1940s, democratically elected leaders both at the national and local levels ruled the French people. However, Pétain had abolished the democratic system of electing leaders. Therefore, he opined that businesspersons and landowners had the capacity to rule people at the local level. Pétain introduced this system in an effort to protect his interests. In his view, local businesspersons and landowners were in a position to promote the conservative policies. In addition, they lived in the countryside, an aspect that conformed to his rural vision and identity for the New France.14 The Vichy regime also introduced a social agenda that promoted the conservative ideologies introduced by Pétain. Pétain had the conviction that there was a salient need to develop the youth into responsible individuals who would take over the nation in the future. Therefore, the Vichy regime gave attention to introducing a new system in schools. The new system would focus on character development, contrary to the intellectual achievement that had been the focus of the previous system. Pétain did not support the views of left-wing teachers, whose focus was to ensure that students registered intellectual achievement. He criticized the system by highlighting that the focus on intellectual achievement left no time for schools to mould students morally. In one of his speeches delivered on 1st January 1944, Pétain highlighted that France was in need of character more than intelligence. In order to ensure that schools promoted character development, Pétain placed emphasis on the need for the opening of many catholic schools.15 Therefore, he opined that religion would make the education system more stable and effective in moulding the moral character of students. In 1941, Pétain reintroduced religious studies as compulsory subjects. Pétain also exhibited his commitment to ensuring that the youth received the relevant support in order to develop fully in different aspects. He realized that schools had given too much focus on academic progress and little attention on the physical activity, communal living, and healthy lifestyles. Therefore, the Vichy regime set up an organization that would help adolescents gain awareness of how to lead healthy lifestyles, and offer them training in outdoor activities such as sports.16 Most importantly, the organization would also help the youth understand the values that governed communal living. Some historians have compared the educational changes as well as the focus on the youth introduced by Pétain to some of the principles developed by Hitler. However, supporters of the national revolution revealed that Pétain sought to replace undesirable characteristics of the Third Republic education system. In his effort to promote the policy of work, the Vichy regime also introduced alternatives to national service for young men.17 Contrary to the compulsory national service, young men would have the opportunity of choosing whether to attend the national service or opt for a quasi-military induction. In addition, the youth had an opportunity of attending training in communal living and learning the ideologies that governed the national revolution. As highlighted above, France had registered declining birth rates, a factor that had contributed to the weakening of the nation. For this reason, the Vichy regime placed emphasis on the need for women to maximize birth rates. Therefore, women in the Vichy regime were to embrace domestic roles without gaining entry into the labour market so that they would have more time to give birth. In order to ensure that families had enough money to support their children, the Vichy regime increased family allowances and extended grants to mothers. In an effort to preserve families, it was impossible to divorce in the first three years of marriage. In addition, the Vichy regime made it evident that abortion was illegal, and a death penalty was introduced for such a crime. The education system ensured that the girls had the relevant skills to qualify as homemakers and to bring up children.18 Although the Vichy regime had a determination to implement a national revolution, some of its initiatives were eventually reversed because it surrendered to pressure from the German occupants. The Vichy regime only proved to be semi-autonomous choosing to collaborate with Hitler in certain aspects. It was due to such collaborations that the resistance movement emerged. Notably, Hitler pursued his agenda in France by ensuring that he had access to raw material and free labour.19 Individuals benefiting from the Vichy’s education system were compelled to work in German factories. In 1942, the Nazi Minister of Labour went to France and eventually compelled the Vichy regime to adopt new labour laws. Unfortunately, the collaboration with the minister led to a labour conscription law, that forced all men above 18 years and lesser than 50 years old to work for German companies until the conclusion of the war. The Vichy regime has also been criticized for supporting anti-Jewish policies introduced by the Nazi Germany.20 Conclusion Evidently, the period between 1940 and 1944 proved to be a dark period in France. After France lost terribly in the war; it faced the compulsion of signing an armistice with the Germans. The Germans occupied half of France, leaving the Southern region unoccupied. The Vichy regime was established in the unoccupied southern region. Pétain and Laval were some of the influential leaders of the Vichy regimes. Both leaders opined that establishing an authoritarian government would place France in a better position to negotiate with the Nazi Germany. For this reason, they abolished the parliamentary system and introduced a monocratic authoritarian government. In the first two years of their leadership, both Pétain and Laval focused on introducing a national revolution. They wanted to restore the lost glories of France by reinstating conservative policies. However, the Vichy regime was under the influence of the Nazi Germany, a factor that made it difficult for the regime to implement some of the initiatives under the national revolution. In 1944, the resistance movement had become strong enough to challenge the Vichy regime in its effort to fight the Germans. Notably, the resistance movement did not support the signing of the armistice. Bibliography Ginio, R, French Colonialism Unmasked: The Vichy Years in French West Africa, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 2006. Jackson, J, France: The Dark Years, 1940-1944, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003. Jennings, EJ, Vichy in the Tropics: Petains National Revolution in Madagascar, Guadeloupe, and Indochina, 1940-44, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2004. Lackerstein, D, National Regeneration in Vichy France: Ideas and Policies, 1930-1944, Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey, England, 2013. Paxton, RO,Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order, 1940-1944, Knopf, New York, 2015. Read More