Battle of the North Atlantic

Beatiful map, but Norway and Finland should be cut into more territories. Norway is all mountains and Finland is all marshes, with bad roads and bad communication lines. As present Norway is the Polar Express, an highway to Murmansk, and that is too silly even today, specially since the railroad end in Middle-Norway. If you want to go from sout to north Norway with car, you must drive through Sweden. Back in 1939 you had to travel with ship. So please make Norway and Finland more territories. They dont need IPC income, the extra territories are to reflect the difficulties of moving an army throug mountains and marshes.

Besides that, I love the map. Nice colours

Can somebody please give Nuclear some + karma from me, I dont have 100 posts yet.  :-)

done.

Very Nice map Nuclear.

One point I noticed was the are around Bordeax with West Vichy touching the Bay of Biscay. The Germans controlled the coastline without controlling Vichy. Maybe extend the Bordeax circle down a bit to compensate so that West Vichy has access to only the West Med?

I’ve argued with Nuclear about the Vichy issue before.  My point is that the Germans quite deliberately occupied the whole of the French Atlantic seaboard presicely to forestall and Allied invasion via this route.

Regarding Norway, I think it would be sufficient to ammend the border; Norway did not have a border with USSR at this time as a thin strip of Finland reached to the Arctic Ocean.  On my map I hedge this a bit by having all the borders meeting at a point. with no diagonal movement allowed.

@Adlertag:

Can somebody please give Nuclear some + karma from me, I dont have 100 posts yet.  :-)

Done again! I love the map!

My point is that the Germans quite deliberately occupied the whole of the French Atlantic seaboard presicely to forestall and Allied invasion via this route.

Thats not true. Hitler was mad that the Vichy french didn’t put up more of a fight against the invading Americans (Operation Torch) and basically gave up way too easily. Occupation was punishment against Vichy.

Vichy france does not have any other name. Thats what it was known in any official capacity after June 1940

@Imperious:

My point is that the Germans quite deliberately occupied the whole of the French Atlantic seaboard presicely to forestall and Allied invasion via this route.

Thats not true. Hitler was mad that the Vichy french didn’t put up more of a fight against the invading Americans (Operation Torch) and basically gave up way too easily. Occupation was punishment against Vichy.

Vichy france does not have any other name. Thats what it was known in any official capacity after June 1940

Wrong on both points.

The argument was about the delineation between German occupied, and Vichy France BEFORE Hitler occupied the south after Torch.  Hitler was more worried about a UK/US invasion of western France, hence the entire Atlantic coast was in German occupied France.

Vichy France never referred to itself by that name, it was a derogatory term coined by the Allies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France

The argument was about the delineation between German occupied, and Vichy France BEFORE Hitler occupied the south after Torch.  Hitler was more worried about a UK/US invasion of western France, hence the entire Atlantic coast was in German occupied France.

This is not true at all. The Vichy territory didn’t ever include any areas adjacent to the Atlantic ocean so it doesn’t matter anyway. Also, the demarcation line was based on control of the ports and NOT fears of allied invasion because in 1940 Hitler figured the war was over anyway and the ONLY consideration of German occupied france was control of the major ports to provide new u-boat bases in warmer waters. It was not as you state" to provide security to prevent allied invasions"

please stop using wikpedia and consult a book on History. Wikpedia could be written by even you or anybody else who never read a book on ww2.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1940/400803a.html

this is a document that also refers to Vichy france and its from German sources… Vichy france is exactly what the french called themselves from 1940-44. Before that it was the french republic. My old maps also list Vichy.

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Vichy government

http://www.answers.com/topic/vichy-france

http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/vichy/govts.htm

now please stop this nonsense. I know you don’t like ‘Vichy france’ but at least acknowledge it as it was known. keep your bias out of telling people what ‘your facts’ are and just stick to the facts themselves.

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