Battle of the North Atlantic

It is not nonesense.  None of your sources ever claim that “Vichy” France called itself by that name.  It called itself “The French State”, but never, ever used the word Vichy.  It is so much simpler to call this area “southern France” not least because it makes it accurate for all periods including the time before France was partitioned.  Calling it “Vichy France” on a 1939 map is REAL nonesense.

Nuclear, if you wish to refer to Vichy France for a map based on the short period when it existed 1940-1942 that’s fine, but it makes sense if you do to draw the border where it actually was.  If you want to ignore the true line for gameplay reasons then Vichy France is no longer Vichy but just becomes southern France.

“Vichy France was that part of France not occupied by German troops until November 1942.”

AUTHORITY OF NAZI AMBASSADOR TO VICHY FRANCE, AUGUST 3, 1940

[Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, 42 vols. (Nuremberg, 1948), VI, 560-561 (Doc. RF-1061). The text in German may be found in ibid., XXXII, 432-433 (Doc. 3614-PS).]

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 3 August 1940

In answer to a question of the Quartermaster General, addressed to the High Command of the Armed Forces and transmitted by the latter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Führer has appointed Abetz, until now Minister, as Ambassador, and on my report has decreed the following:

I. Ambassador Abetz has the following functions in France:

1. To advise the military agencies on political matters

2. To maintain permanent contact with the Vichy Government and its representatives in the occupied zone.

3. To influence the important political personalities in the occupied zone and in the unoccupied zone in a way favorable to our intentions.

4. To guide from the political point of view the, press, the radio, and the propaganda in the occupied zone and to influence the responsive elements engaged in the molding of public opinion in the unoccupied zone.

5. To take care of the German, French, and Belgian citizens returning from internment camps.

6. To advise the secret military police and the Gestapo on the seizure of politically important documents.

7. To seize and secure all public art treasures and private art treasures, and particularly art treasures belonging to Jews, on the basis of special instructions relating thereto.

II. The Führer has expressly ordered that only Ambassador Abetz shall be responsible for all political questions in Occupied and Unoccupied France. Insofar as military interests are touched by his duties, Ambassador Abetz shall act only in agreement with the Military Command in France.

III. Ambassador Abetz will be attached to the Military Commander in France as his deputy. His domicile shall continue to be in Paris as hitherto. He will receive from me instructions for the accomplishment of his tasks and will be responsible solely to me. I shall greatly appreciate it if the High Command of the Armed Forces will give the necessary orders to the military agencies concerned as quickly as possible.

Signed: RIBBENTROP

Vichy’s Intellectual Origins

In terms of political philosophy Vichy was a diverse regime with its Ministers drawn from several different currents, ranging between traditionalists and modernisers. It is important to take this into account when considering the politics of Vichy. Also one should bear in mind that its politics evolved over time with the traditionalists dominating at the outset but by 1944 a fascist-inspired current was clearly in evidence. Owing to increasing German pressure Vichy’s political autonomy declined with time with the result that its autonomous political philosophy increasingly took a back seat.

Vichy’s traditionalist philosophy originated with the writers who had articulated a spiritual challenge to Revolutionary France. Many of these were associated with the nationalism of the beginning of the 20th century. The nationalist writer Maurice Barrès had written of France as an organic society whose key values were a respect for her ancestry and the values of rural culture in opposition to the materialist rootlessness of urban, industrialised society. Prominent amongst the nationalists of the early 20th Century was the monarchist Charles Maurras (1868-1952) who founded the far right organisation ‘Action Française’ which was to be a key influence on the traditionalists at Vichy. Maurras insisted on the concept of there being a ‘true France’ from which the forces of the ‘anti-France’ should be excluded. Maurras defined the ‘anti-France’ in terms of Socialists, Radical Republicans, Freemasons, Protestants, foreigners and Jews. Within Vichy nationalism there was a clear anti-Semitic current which was reminiscent of the writings of anti-Dreyfusards such as Edouard Drumont at the turn of the century.

More recent influences included the nationalist movements of the 1930s, such the Croix de Feu.

The regime was also influenced by the authoritarian, nationalist movements which had been established in Italy under Mussolini, in Germany under Hitler, in Spain under Franco and in Portugal under Salazar. Franco and Salazar were particular points of reference for the traditionalists at Vichy. There are clearly a number of themes common to these authoritarian regimes and Vichy: the cult of the leader, the growth of police repression, a redefining of notions of justice, the rejection of liberal democracy, hostility towards both capitalism and socialism and the theme of national regeneration. However there are some important differences between Vichy and the fascist regimes, particularly that of Germany. Vichy did not challenge traditional hierarchies in the way the Nazis did. Although Vichy may have used violence in its police repression, war and violence were not celebrated in the same way as under the Nazis. Also whilst both Vichy and the Nazis tried to indoctrinate the young, youth and dynamism were fundaments of the Nazi regime itself whereas Vichy was a gerontocracy (government by old men). Vichy ministers, with a few exceptions, rejected totalitarianism on the Nazi model and the idea of a single party or a single youth group.

In the economic sphere Vichy also drew on the knowledge of the technocrats. These were specialist experts often with a non-conformist leaning. Edouard Daladier’s government in the late 1930s had already facilitated the entry of such experts into the corridors of power in an attempt to maximise productivity. The same search for economic efficiency encouraged the opening up of some of the economic ministries to technocrats during the Vichy years. These technocrats were clearly modernisers and therefore stand in apparent opposition to the traditionalist philosophies which dominated so much of Vichy’s early discourse.

Vichy was also strongly influenced by the Veteran associations of the inter-war period. As there were so many people who had suffered as a consequence of World War One these veterans associations formed a powerful lobby group.

Finally, although Vichy was very much a right wing government there were a few dissidents from the left, (such as the radical Georges Bonnet or the socialist Paul Faure), who were attracted to Vichy. These were individuals whose relations with the communists or the socialists had gone sour. Often their motivation for joining forces with Vichy was inspired partly by a strong pacifism. Vichy generally presented itself as the guarantor of peace, a possibility for France to stay out of the conflict. This touched a nerve with many, including some dissidents from the left.

quote from sources and the last one is french.

I can only quote from internet sources so you can reference them. I have over 800 books on WW2 and none of them refer to Vichy as anything else. Plus i have maps made form this period and they cant all be wrong ONLY BECAUSE YOU SAY DIFFERENT. You should begin to reference your ideas with supporting documentation. You have no counter proof that VICHY france was called 'south france" or “German unoccupied france”  Again your own bias is 90% of the comments you make.

The French State

this is what it was called before Germany crushed it in 1940.

the German part of it was German occupied france and the unoccupied portion was Vichy france because the government center was located in Vichy. Thats what the world called it. If your grandfather called it “the french state” and told you lies about Vichy i suspect he also never picked up a history book and had his own bias working against him.

Not proven.

I’m perfectly aware that other countries at the time, and ever since, have called it Vichy France.  It may have been referred to as “The Government in Vichy”, but that’s like calling Eastern USA “Washington America”.
Or calling Germany “Nazi Germany”.  It never called itself that, and there’s no need to use the Nazi lable on the German territory.  You might as well us “Royal England” or “Masonic America”,  just because these were the real rulers of the place.

Actually, I have no problem with using the term Vichy France on a map even though the name is unoffficial, so long as

a) it covers the same area as the real VF, i.e. it has no Atlantic coastline, and
b) the map is set at the time VF existed, i.e. Summer 1940-November 1942

you have not brought up any ‘proof’ to the contrary. A map of the world in 1942 or any reference by the world at large always has Vichy France. If a few frenchies ever called themselves the “french state” i suspect they drank too  much wine or figured that france was forever a vassal of German occupation. Vichy france is what it was called because it was exactly not to be confused with the french republic.

So please show us a line where the any author, historian, historical map EVER once referred to Vichy France as “the french state”  So far you have done nothing.

a) it covers the same area as the real VF, i.e. it has no Atlantic coastline, and
b) the map is set at the time VF existed, i.e. Summer 1940-November 1942

nothing has ever been done by me that would not reflect that. The territories labeled free french indicate where they automatically.

but that’s like calling Eastern USA “Washington America”.

Your not making any credible analogy. America was not conquered and forced to make a substitute capital in say Chicago forced under the treaty they made with Germany. Vichy France was the name of the reformed government under Petain centered in Vichy rather than Paris. It reflects a conquered status of what was self imposed and offered by Germany. Its the official name they declared themselves as diplomatic relations with other neutrals at large including the USA. A better analogy may have been Manchukuo/ Manchuria which in the former case was an attempt by Japan to establish an independent detached nation from Japan for the purpose of maintaining legitimacy on the public stage, even though it was totally tied to japan as a exploitable conquest. The conquerers in this case have absolutely the right to impose new titles on conquests as long they are neutral to other nations not in the conflict.

Vichy is what the french decided however to call themselves, In Manchuria’s case it was probably acceptable to say Manchukuo because only China still used Manchuria… and they don’t count because they don’t control it. You see how that works?

But the French didn’t call themselves that, which is the whole point.

If the rest of the world decides to call the UK “England” it doesn’t make it correct to label it so.

But the French didn’t call themselves that, which is the whole point.

If the rest of the world decides to call the UK “England” it doesn’t make it correct to label it so.

You still never offered anything to prove that. and secondly, if you ever had any proof the relative truth of that statement would render valueless because they were conquered peoples and have no say in what they were called and officially they were Vichy france anyway and thats the title they used to establish diplomatic relations with other neutrals with.

anything else is as usual only in your mind and no other. Your like the only guy in History who ever made such a statement about Vichy france. While i have nearly a thousand books that say one thing…some dude named flashman who posts at AA.org says another thing… I think ill stick with the primary sources rather than you.

Hello,

I’ve been browsing the forums and found this discussion about Vichy France rather interesting so I decided to make a few research on my own. The easiest way to settle this is to look at the Constitution of the Vichy regime (the legal document that defines and codes the state) and see the name that they called itself.

Here’s the link I used: http://mjp.univ-perp.fr/france/france.htm

It’s a database from a french university and contains all french constitutions (in french, of course). According to it,
the regime established after the 1940 defeat didn’t call itself ‘Vichy France’, it was called ‘L’Etat Français’ (The French State) in the ‘Loi constitutionnelle du 10 juillet 1940’ (constitutional law of July 10th, 1940), in substitution of the previous ‘3e République’ (‘3rd Republic’ - which was the one crushed by Germany).
It would make no sense (on a political or constitutional level) for the ‘French State’ to call itself Vichy France because that would simply remind the french citizens under its control that its actual power only represented the portion of France not occupied by Germany. In the constitution there’s no reference to its power being limited to that area, it presents itself as a continuation of the 3rd Republic, since nearly all new political regimes present themselves as continuations of the previous ones, in order to claim legitimacy.
Thus, Vichy France is merely a label applied to it because the seat of the government was on Vichy France and the name stuck because that’s how Germans called it (Ribbentrop calls it ‘l’État français à Vichy’ on a letter to Pétain, the president of the French State, available on that site) and the Allies as well.

And the name stuck so well, in fact, that in 2003 a law proposal was presented at the French Assemblée Nationalle (National Parliament): http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/propositions/pion0729.asp

It’s propose is: “visant à substituer, dans les communications publiques invoquant la période de l’État français, aux références à la ville de Vichy, l’appellation « dictature de Pétain »”. Or, to replace in all public communications that refer to the period of the french State any reference to the village of Vichy by the designation ‘Pétain’s dictatorship’.
According to the text of the proposal the honor and reputation of the citizens of Vichy is tainted by the association of their village with ‘treason, capitulation or outrage at the republican regime’.

Thats good research, but the victors and the world really make this determination in the final analysis. That is purely semantics because the real article finds then as Vichy France by what the world at that time used as its reference to France. Perhaps only a few used “the french state” but again i appeal to the history of these times and 99.9999999% of them were using Vichy France. I don’t plan on rewriting History to suit some document that shows one article when a billions others say “Vichy” i say “Vichy” as well.

And perhaps the french should not have signed an armistice in that train because it didn’t reference them as “the french state”  I think thats the french way of saving face for a total humiliation and hopelessness of their situation.  If i ever even thought of another term to use for them it would be " unoccupied france"

Winners write History :)

I only researched this because I’ve done some postgraduate studies on political science and the matter discussed brought my curiosity. According to the university site mentioned above the armstice was legally signed by the 3rd Republic, as Pétain had been legally empossed as the Prime Minister on the 16th of June. He then used his powers to form the French State.

And, like the law proposal mentions, even in France they prefer to refer to the French State as Vichy (it does not mention that the proposal was approved, so most likely it was rejected).

If you use “Vichy France” then you must also use “Nazi Germany” on the same principle, as that’s what 99% of histories refer to that state as.

Also, if the rest of the world calls America “Yankee land” does that become it’s official name regardless of the southern states objections?

Winners write history sure enough, but in 1940-42 Vichy France was on the winning side and Free France was a few diehard exiles.  I use the term Vichy France quite freely to determine the state I’m talking about, but it doesn’t make it correct to label a map with it, certainly not for 1939. We all use the term “America” but I’ve yet to see the USA so labeled on a map.

If you use “Vichy France” then you must also use “Nazi Germany” on the same principle, as that’s what 99% of histories refer to that state as.

That is not a relevant analogy. During the war and in published books and documents they never related to “nazi germany” while they did relate to Vichy france and not this stupid “the french state”

please look at a map of the period and come back.

but in 1940-42 Vichy France was on the winning side and Free France was a few diehard exiles.  I use the term Vichy France quite freely to determine the state I’m talking about, but it doesn’t make it correct to label a map with it, certainly not for 1939. We all use the term “America” but I’ve yet to see the USA so labeled on a map.

Clearly more drivel… USA had never surrendered and reestablished her capital in Vichy.

If you look at Yugoslavia after 1941 it ceased to exist. It was turned into Serbia, Croatia, and Montenegro with the balance of territory given to Axis minor allies and Italy as concessions. And NOW look at it. Do you still call it Yugoslavia???  NO YOU DONT!!  and the reason is because it was divided by the victors and they write History. Losers never write history…

The frogs have no say in what they are called… they were conquered peoples. Because the “free- french” which represented another party not related to Vichy france was on the American side it has no bearing on this. They rejected Vichy as defeatist, while Vichy was content to help the Germans any way they could.

Your mixing apples and oranges.

can you repost latest file?? and email me original? Id like to print it out and play.

also where are the rules?

If you make a copy of the map available i can provide some input on this.

@Nuclear:

As for the rules, I am still typing them up.  Should have a good handle on those soon.  Very similar to traditional Axis and Allies rules.  So should be easy to understand.

So its going to be a standalone document?

If there aren’t many changes you can just reference LHTR. Saves you lots of time.