Can someone explain Vichy France to me?

[Gedd]

From what I’ve gathered, after France surrendered Germany split the country in two; the military controlled one part and the other part had kind of a fake French government. Or something like that.

If that is what they did, why did they do it that way? Did they not have the manpower to police the whole place, was this supposed to make the French people happy, or what? What did the people think of the Vichy Regime?

[silenus]

Hitler really didn't want the headache of administering France, so when the French government asked for an armistice, he agreed. The Germans occupied the northern part of the country, but civil rule of virtually all of France was the responsibility of the Vichy government.

[code_grey]

silenus is absolutely right. On the level of how the local bureaucracy functions there was total continuity across the year 1940 in pretty much the whole of France (not sure about the details for the Italian zone of occupation where many Jews hid away from persecution). The real changes happened at the top in that the previous constitutional order was abolished and a new self-proclaimed technocratic government was set up. In the view of some historians the postwar dirigisme originates from the Vichy days. Perhaps a better way to look at it would be, both the Vichy regime and the dirigisme stem from the same current of French political thought whereas some of the more chaotic aspects of 3rd republic originate from another (and also fairly salient) current, along with the revolt of 1968 and similar outbursts that France has had its fair share of.

German troops were stationed in various places for their own reasons (here is a case of major redeployment of theirs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Anton ) but that did not really affect the issue of French governance. French high officials were supposed to be subordinated to Germans regardless of location, but then Germans had other things to do with their time than run around dictating every bit of policy.

[2ply]

Germany only wanted to control northern France for the same reason it wanted to control Norway, it gave them a longer coast line to prevent Britain from invading Europe from the Atlantic coast (lot of good that did) and make it harder for Britain to blockade Germany as it did in World War I.

[Captain Amazing]

Right. From the terms of the Armistice Agreement:

ARTICLE II.

To safeguard the interests of the German Reich, French State territory north and west of the line drawn on the attached map will be occupied by German troops.

Clause 1
As far as the parts to be occupied still are not in control of German troops, this occupation will be carried out immediately after the conclusion of this treaty.

ARTICLE III.

In the occupied parts of France the German Reich exercises all rights of an occupying power. The French Government obligates itself to support with every means the regulations resulting from the exercise of these rights and to carry them out with the aid of French administration.

Clause 1
All French authorities and officials of the occupied territory, therefore, are to be promptly informed by the French Government to comply with the regulations of the German military commanders and to cooperate with them in a correct manner.

Clause 2
It is the intention of the German Government to limit the occupation of the west coast after ending hostilities with England to the extent absolutely necessary.

Clause 3
The French Government is permitted to select the seat of its government in unoccupied territory, or, if it wishes, to move to Paris. In this case, the German Government guarantees the French Government and its central authorities every necessary alleviation so that they will be in a position to conduct the administration of unoccupied territory from Paris.

Technically, this was a temporary occupation until the end of the war, to be followed by a permanent peace treaty.

[Gedd]

Originally Posted by 2ply

Germany only wanted to control northern France for the same reason it wanted to control Norway, it gave them a longer coast line to prevent Britain from invading Europe from the Atlantic coast (lot of good that did) and make it harder for Britain to blockade Germany as it did in World War I.

What I don't get is why they had to split the country in two to do that. Was the military not allowed in the southern part or something? Norway (as one example) was occupied during the war and only had one ruling government, the Reichskommissariat Norwegen.

I guess a major part of my question would be the differences between the two parts. For example if you committed a crime would the trial and/or punishment be different depending on which zone you committed it in?

[Gedd]

Just read Captain Amazing's post. Basically Germany could focus all their military force in the north and in the south France was allowed to have their own government (to a point) as long as they promised to behave?

[sidecar_jon]

Might i add, at the time one could say broadly there were two factions in the French ruling elite, one feared Communism above everything and one Facisum, neither of which wanted to be invaded but only one sort of favoured the Germans invading.

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by Gedd

What I don't get is why they had to split the country in two to do that. Was the military not allowed in the southern part or something? Norway (as one example) was occupied during the war and only had one ruling government, the Reichskommissariat Norwegen.

I guess a major part of my question would be the differences between the two parts. For example if you committed a crime would the trial and/or punishment be different depending on which zone you committed it in?

The Germans *could* have occupied the entire country if they wished - and in fact, towards the end of the war they did more-or-less eliminate Vichy's autonomy. But why occupy and administer the entire country if you don't have to? The Germans felt they could accomplish their strategic aims through only a partial occupation of France, backed by the threat of a full occupation if the Vichy regime proved uncooperative.

[code_grey]

France had only one government too - the Vichy one. And there were also some German troops stationed in places where Germans wanted them stationed. Stationing them all over the country would have been a waste of troops.

American-occupied Iraq probably presents a more interesting case of a country that seems to have two governments, e.g. as shown by American military patrolling the streets meting out its own justice parallel to whatever the local civilian authorities are doing, while Coalition Provisional Authority co-existed with the Iraqi government. But in occupied France by and large the government was left to its own devices when administering the land, collecting taxes, maintaining a (small) military etc.

They did have to give a lot of money and goods to the Germans, though. Romania was number one supporter in terms of boots on the ground for the war in Russia, but France was number one supporter in terms of economic assistance / tribute.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Mr. Excellent

The Germans *could* have occupied the entire country if they wished - and in fact, towards the end of the war they did more-or-less eliminate Vichy's autonomy. But why occupy and administer the entire country if you don't have to? The Germans felt they could accomplish their strategic aims through only a partial occupation of France, backed by the threat of a full occupation if the Vichy regime proved uncooperative.

Germany (and Italy) occupied the rest of France in November 1942, after the Allies invaded North Africa. So the division between occupied and unoccupied areas lasted a bit over two years.

[Little Nemo]

The Germans felt that maintaining a posture that France was still an independent country would further German interests. It would reduce resistance in France and keep French overseas colonies under control.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The Germans felt that maintaining a posture that France was still an independent country would further German interests. It would reduce resistance in France and keep French overseas colonies under control.

Good point. The control of the colonies (or at least ensuring their neutrality) was probably why they agreed to that.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The Germans felt that maintaining a posture that France was still an independent country would further German interests. It would reduce resistance in France and keep French overseas colonies under control.

And remember the French Fleet. Since there was still an allegedly independent French Government, the fleet stayed under Vichy French control (thus really German control) instead of joining with the Free French forces under DeGaulle.

[pdunderhill]

I write as an Englishman, so please forgive my not very subtle viewpoint on this matter.
The French and the English are too damn close to produce anything other than either sweet accord or absolute loathing. Vichy France was an abhorence, nobody disputes that. However there was a 'piece of England' that the German Army did hold, the Channel Islands.
I lived there about 15 years ago for a few months and you don't have to dig hard to find some quite violent opinions amongst those who were there at the time. An old lady in St. Aubin who had a relationship with an SS officer in '43-'44 is still ignored in local shops, nothing illegal just a half century contempt for a teenagers foolishness.
Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.
The more it changes, the more it stays the same.
Peter