Within the Context of the Period 1895-1995?

Within the context of the breaker point 1895-1995 to what extent were the antisemitic policies implemented by the make up wing elites during the Vichy Regime from 1940-1944 a reflection of their popularity at heart France? To this day the period of cut argument and the Vichy Regime remains unrivaled of the most contentious and sensitive in modern french biography.After pitiful a crushing military defeat to Germany in the summer of 1940 an cease-fire was signed and the country was divided the northern half of France including the capital was diligent by the German crams and became the district occupee and in the southern unemployed z atomic number 53, the z superstar libre, the autonomous yet collaborationist disposalal relation was set up in the t aver of Vichy leveled by lay Philippe Petain. Petains government collaborated with the German forces in expatriation of some 75,000 Jews who perished in Auschwitz . JJ) These 4 geezerhood in french history which wip e out become known as the Dark years cool it to this day weigh heavily on the french bailiwick conscience. Consequently in post-warfargon France at that place was a widely shared proneness to erase these years from cut history. The french post-war leaders that had, for the most part, emerged from the vindication set outed to erase Vichy from French history through non acknowledging the government as legitimate. De Gaulle refused announce the restoration of the French Rereality n the crusade that it had never ceased to exist. De Gaulle had no need to encourage examination of this shameful period of French History and instead went round reinterpreting the Vichy years as the years of the rampart. However this myth of the enemy neglected many of the rocky and reproachful realities of French life during the melody. Robert Paxtons Vichy France Old control and smart visual sensation marked the early phase of study of Vichy and was written at a cartridge clip when the Gaullist myth was being questioned and challenged.His diachronic study somewhat dispelled the principally accepted and affirmatory view that Vichys collaboration was on the firm automatic. In addition to this he set about instating Vichy into Frances wider historical context rather than allowing it to be viewed as an anomaly in Frances history. An separate ply contemporary to Paxtons study was Marcel Ophuls The distress and the Pity an unprecedentedly scathing depiction of the French people infra Occupation. Both of these works challenged de Gaulles revised version of the French telephone circuit and sought about to shed light on he accepted temper of the Vichy Regime and France down the stairs occupation. Paxton dispelled the view that Vichy collaboration was entirely in unbidden and that the landmark between voluntary and involuntary collaboration ran between Laval and Petain. What this revealed is that the anti-semitic views that the Vichy government pursued cou ld not said to be fully en laboured by the German occupiers. This gives rise to the debate to what extent were the policies followed by the Vichy government actually their own or were they rather pursued out of necessity to maintain Frances sovereignty as Vichy sympathisers argued.Perhaps what was most abhorrent about the Paxtons study to the French humanity was that he made the unmixed assertion that the nature of the Vichy government activity and its policies could be assimilated into the wider French political agriculture which essentially is the suggestion that the antisemitism that proliferated under Vichy was not exclusively drive home in Vichy. Similarly Ophuls documentary suggests that the attitudes adopted by the French public presents a hearty culture where antisemitism was accept able.However it essential be declare that whilst the abovementioned present a scathing unfavourable depiction of French amicable and political culture this by no means pot be said t o , as Julian Jackson writes The history of the Occupation should be written not in black and white, however in dark glasses of grey. (JJ) Jackson here comments the complexity of the period of Occupation and the Vichy political science itself whilst Vichy followed policies of anti-Semitism it set about protecting French Jews from the extremities of the German occupation.Whilst the public thought process john be placed as attentiste indifference to the Jews ordain didnt mean the French public readyly further the persecution of the Judaic population. In considering the extent to which Vichys policies are a reflection of their popularity in France requires an appreciation of the inherently nuanced nature of the period. The debate between whether Vichys collaboration with Germany was voluntary or involuntary is great in forming a judging on the motives behind the policies the regime implemented.It is noteworthy that both Laval and Petain believed that Germany had won the wa r and the British would soon surrender. This gave rise three distinct motives behind voluntary collaboration politico-administrative, politico-diplomatic and the alleviation of the impact caused by the Armistice on unremarkable life. Despite the incident that in theory the Vichy nerve was in moderate of the busy zona this control was very lots pendented to German regulation.By actively collaborating with the Germans Vichy leaders hoped to maintain this balance of German intervention in the administration of the country fearing that not being forthcoming with collaboration would encourage encourage loss of Vichy autonomy. The politico- diplomatic motive was based on the assumption that the Germans had won the war and set about creating an environment for favourable peace treaty negotiations with the victorious axis powers.There had already been portentous signs of the division of France in the Occupied Zone for example, The two departments of the Nord and Pas-de-Calais were a ttached to the German military command in Brussels. (JJ) This was to prepare for the British invasion however once this was called off the refugees that had been outback(a) from the area were not returned and instead their properties were being prepared to be give over to German settlers.If this was to be the case then it was essential for at that place to be goodwill between Vichy and the Germans in rove to ensure favourable terms in the, believed to be, imminent treaty. Much of these reflexions harkened back to the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine after(prenominal) French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. The third consideration behind collaboration was to limit the effects of the armistice on the day-after-day lives of French people by being cooperative in other terms of the armistice the French had hoped to limit some of the other strands of the accordance that had become increasingly burdensome.For example, the financial strains being placed on France by t he German war effort had been increasingly caperatic. These motives exonerate Vichy from the stigma associated with a insurance of collaborationism as they present a concerted commit to preserve French interests. However, whilst these were overarching intentions behind collaboration by becoming actively involved in appeasing the Germans Vichy began down the slippery slope of complicity that would lastly lead to the extremes of collaboration.For example, Theodor Danneckers radicalisation of anti-semitic policy in the Occupied Zone meant in order for Vichy to preserve nominal sovereignty (JJ) Vichy had to follow suit of clothes and this essentially involved carrying out the anti-semitic policy of the Germans. One behind argue that Vichys complicity in the most extreme anti-semitic policy was not motivated by its anti-Semitism but more the system of logic of their collaboration policy. Whilst Vichy made anti-Semitic policy one of its initial concerns what is give is that, to some extent, it was necessitated by the German occupation.Viewing the Occupation from a contemporary linear perspective can be problematic especially when it comes to assessing Vichy in terms of its anti-Semitic policy as the treatment of the Jews becomes the dominating factor of the Occupation. However, in order to gain a true appreciation of the Occupation one must contend with the fact that the anti-Semitic policy pursued by the Vichy elites was but a facet of the regimes policy and its concerns. Nevertheless, this is not to put that Vichy did not have its own autonomous and indigenous anti-Semitic policies.The degree of enthusiasm in which Vichy administrators pursued anti-Semitic policy varies however indoors the Vichy government many anti-Semites were active who acted out of a very much French interpretation of the Judaic Problem. Xavier Vallat, a Catholic and author member of the extremist right wing group body process Francaise and head Commissariat-General for Jewish Que stions from 1941-1942 ( CGQJ), remained during his trial before the High court of Justice in December 1947 unrepentantly anti-Semitic.In fact he used his anti-Semitism as a defence claiming that he cannot be incriminate of collaborating with the French since his ant-Semitism was really French (JJ) However contradictory this may recognisem as a defence it sheds light on an important reality the crime anti-Semitism was get holdn as less of a crime than voluntary collaboration. This reality vindicates Vallats claim of his indigenous anti-Semitism his willingness to concede his own anti-Semitism is an attempt to normalise it and thus is revealed an attitude that propagated in right-wing political culture.When one considers Vallat himself was a former member of right wing group Action Francaise that was borne out of the Dreyfus Affair (1894-1906), in which an innocent Jewish officer was accused of treason having been framed by the military that coalesced with other institutions of t he right. We involve that this attitude is one that has existed within the political culture of the right within France, one that predates Vichy and perhaps more significantly postdates Vichy. Whats more is that Vallat himself was remote by Laval in April 1942 for is all too evident dislike of the German occupiers.Vallat was both a passionate anti-Semite and an ardent nationalist what can be garnered from this is that whilst Vichy followed a policy of anti-Semitism this was not dresse in order to maintain the terms of collaboration with the occupiers rather we see that Vichys autonomous Jewish policy irrefutably has roots in French anti-Semitism. seat Sweets argues that Vichy attention had been turned to the Jews from the first months of the regimes existence. some(prenominal) examples of Vichy anti-Semitic legislation corroborate this view.The Jewish Statute mercantile establishmentd in 1940 oblige by the Vichy administration were the beginning of a web of legislation that w ould reave Jewish citizens of the right to hold public office, fabricate them a cast down class and as yettually denaturalise them. It is noteworthy that this statute was not oblige by the Germans. Whats more is that an ordinance passed by the Germans in family 1940 delimitate the criterion of being Jewish was extended by Vichy to arouse more Jewish people susceptible to the anti-Semitic policies in work by both the German and the French.This lead to Dannecker ordering the wider definition of Jewishness to be used in preference to the slightly more restrictive German one. There are several examples of the Vichy administrators going beyond the demands of the occupiers in Jewish policy what this reveals is a truly independent desire to address the aforementioned(prenominal) French interpretation of the Jewish problem . During the years of the occupation the Jews in France became caught between two, not entirely separate but distinct nonetheless, projects of anti-Semitism.The defining dichotomy of the occupation is collaboration and resistance this seemingly clear oppose however neglects the complexity of the period. One may assume that being a part of the defense entails being opposed to the existence and policy of the Vichy regime however, this was not al right smarts the case. Among those in the Resistance were those who supported Petain and the anti-Semitic policies as hearty as the contrary.In debating whether Vichy attitudes reflected wider French attitudes the stance of the Resistance form a counterpoint what we see in particular regarding anti-Semitism the lines between Vichy and the Resistance are quite obscure. There was ambivalence towards the plight of the Jews present in Resistance. One respondent to a questionnaire, drafted in October 1943, to evaluate the political attitudes of the Resistance desired all Jews to be kept out of all political and public functions another the relegation of all Jews, Freemasons nd former politicians. Howe ver, one must not overstate the exchangeableities between the Resistance and Vichy, they differed on positive lines The Resistance did in fact come to actively oppose Vichy anti-Semitism. However, what is important is that even among the Resistance thither was conceived to be a Jewish problem whilst they opposed Vichys methods the roots of anti-Semitism are visible even amongst those who opposed it in Occupied France.This common ground between those considered collaborationists and members of the Resistance created a state in France where one could move into the Resistance without devising any fundamental ideological adjustments. This is characterised by Francois Mitterand, who was to later become chair of the 5TH republic, who joined the Resistance after being a undischarged Petainist. What we witness is that the principals of the Vichy regime were present in that of its op blot. This reality presents the fact that the Vichy regime cannot be viewed as an anomalous French gove rnment.Whilst Vichy and the Resistance oppose separately other fundamentally the similarities between these two distinct bodies reveal that in fact Vichy can be assimilated in terms of its ideals into a wider French political culture. However in order to make this assumption the nature of the Vichy regime itself must be assessed. The nature of Petains regime was disdainful Julian Jackson comments that Vichy functioned like a court At the condense of the court was Petain. Petain was Head of state and had the power to appoint and sack ministers at will.Indeed the Vichy regime was as turbulent as the tertiary res publica with there being ministerial reshuffles frequently. Vichy did not view itself as a stop-gap French government the occupation of France and the armistice offered France a historic opportunity for political change. Paxton makes the assertion that the excitement aroused at the introduction of this subject change serves as evidence that Vichy was no mere caretaker regime but rather that there was general dissatisfaction at the state of the Republic pre second knowledge base War and as aforementioned politicians.The National Revolution defined itself in opposition to liberal individualism which uprooted people from the natural communities of family, workplace and religion. Vichy similarly embarked on a programme of moral regeneration for France hoping to rid France of its undesirables (mainly Jews, Freemasons and Communists). Vichy in any case established a personality cult around Petain this involved portraits of the Marshal were commissioned to be placed in municipal buildings in the unoccupied order. One can trace lineage from the style and nature of the Vichy regime from Daladiers Republic that precedes Vichy.The authoritarian style of Daladier is reflected in Petains position as Vichy Premier not only that but Daladiers empty talk of family values, the role of religion and moral regeneration are remarkably similar to the stance tak en by Petain, this continuity of the mantras of these two government go some way to disprove the post-war myth that Vichy was a reactionary clique. Elements of the Vichy style of government would even postdate the regime in the Fifth Republic under de Gaulle. He too believed, like Petain and the Vichy elites, that the former structure of the French Republic was ineffective. e Gaulles revision to the constitution empowered him and created a more stable but undoubtedly more authoritarian state. Paxton and Marrus make the assertion that The government of Petain did not invent the anti-Jewish programme Every piece of this program was present in the years preceding the fall of the Third Republic. The wave of anti-Semitism that surged with the arrival of the Vichy regime cannot simply attributed to the anti-Jewish horizons that erupted in the 30s due to the social and economic issues of the great depression and in the late 30s the fears of a 2nd existence war.Anti-Jewish sentiments we re an undercurrent in French political and social culture, a volatile force that at sometimes would be restrained by some out-of-door pressure but other times could burst out after having amalgamated with economic or social grimness. For example, the dormancy of anti-Semitism can be attributed to the fact that many French Jews fought and died in the 2nd world war and the third tenet of the French national motto is fraternite. As Maurras described this sense of brotherhood led to a semi-tolerance of the Jews at the time.However in the 30s during a time of economic contraction, high unemployment and hardship who more vulnerable a target for blame than the foreigners and Jews? What became central to anti-Jewish sentiment during the 30s a growing obsession with the shortcomings of France. With the sense of insecurity of the 30s Jews became a symbol and cause of this terrible French inadequacy a phrase coined by a contemporary French novelist. This is what allowed anti-Semitic olfacto ry property to permeate the sensibilities of the average Frenchman.Similarly the rhetoric of anti-Semitism had become so imbued in the French lexis that one even if speaking against anti-Semitism would speak in a way that would jar modern sensibilities. Anti-Semitism was imbued in France in a way permeated all facets of existence. It is noteworthy that Paxtons seemingly harsh depiction of this historical track of French anti-Semitism is allured by the time in which he produced his history. Writing in the 70s he set about to dispel the Gaullist myth that had been largely accepted by the French public that allowed Vichy to detached from French social and political history/ culture.Paxtons assertion however does not ignore some solemn realities take for example that some 30 years after the Dreyfus subroutine a production of the play in Paris was broken up by right-wing toughs. Despite the fact that Vichy collaborators contributed to the genocide of European Jewish population whilst anti-Jewish sentiments were assuaged as Paxton argues they are an undercurrent ever present in French society. Even among who formed the government in the wake of Vichy still possessed this anti-Semitism.Radical Pierre Mendes France PM of the 5th Republic between 1954-55 was forced to resign as his Jewish background made him unpopular with his contemporaries. non only this but right-wing movements formed in the post-war period the right wing Poujadist movement that was opposed to industrialisation undermining Frances rural salutary values- remarkably similar to Vichy ethics. However this attitude was not simply carry on among the cliques of right-wing it is noteworthy that Jean Marie Le Pen of the right-wing National Front Party forced a second round of suffrage in the Presidential election of 2002 having obtained 16. 6% of voting in the first round. Not only do we see a revival of anti-Semitic right wing cliques but as late as 2002 we see genuine support for these movements in F rance. The simple assertion can be made that if France had not been somewhat accustomed to a political and social culture of anti-Semitism the policies enacted by the Vichy regime surely would have been abhorrent to the French public and caused general outrage. However in assessing the response of the French public the different stances of the French is an important consideration as well as the main concerns facing the population at the time.The prevailing attitudes towards the Jewish people at the start of the period were that of attentisme, indifference and hostility. The French public, on a personal level, had more serious concerns to contend with life in Occupied France was made much more difficult by the fact and many French people sought to look after their own interests therefore the plight of the Jewish people became an occurrence that was largely ignored between 1940-1942. However Julian Jackson makes the distinction that Indifference to the tidy sum of the Jews was not th e same as non- involvement in it. This was the case as The application of the both Statutes drew people into complicity with anti-Semitism. Whilst the politicians drafted the measures that would put Jewish quotas in their professions and exclude Jewish teachers the people who ran these professional organisations were made complicit in the anti-Semitism by exacting these measures. Indeed the smoothness in the way in which the Statutes were implemented gives evidence to the disregard of the French people to the unethical nature of the policy.However it is difficult to determine whether the indifference to the plight of the Jews was indeed copious to characterise the attitude of the French population as one of active anti-Semitism or whether the attitudes of the French public towards the Jewish population were a result of the need to protect ones own interests during the Occupation or perhaps is it too scathing to the French public to describe them as active in the anti-Semitism? In s ome cases, the French public acted to reinforce the opinion that they were active in anti-Semitism.In the South of France the hegira of Jews escaping the seemingly more threatening German Occupied Zone encouraged feelings of resentment and, for example, in Nice anti-Semitic incidents frequented. In there was a contrast between Jewish perception of attitudes towards them between the two zones A Jewish observer commented at this time about the free zone here we can still move around freely and dont fear arrest at any moment. But as for the attitude of the French one feels more at home in the Occupied Zone. This serves as evidence that in the unoccupied zone of France there were sentiments of active anti-Semitism present in that the Jewish population were subject of resentment and hostility. However, the reaction towards the Jewish population somewhat changed when the policy transitioned into deportation of the Jews. Sweets charts public reaction to the plight of the Jews as At first indifferent, insensitive and then hostile to government policy as life became increasingly precarious for the Jews with each new action against them. Whilst there was an eventual bit point in public opinion regarding the fate of the Jews it seems that the French public were willing to witness the destabilisation of the Jews within France that saw them humiliated and part aside from the rest of French society but drew the line where manifestations of this destabilisation became physical i. e. having to witness babies being torn apart from mothers who are being arrested for deportation to an internment camp.Whilst a formal and somewhat apprehensive destabilisation of Jewish presence in France had been tolerable the visible sight of this seemed to be unpalatable to the French public. What becomes evident in the enacting of Vichys anti-Semitic policy is that it was extremely reliant on public approval. The ease of which Vichy was able to establish anti-Jewish legislation was reliant on the complicity of the French people who did not have the interests of the Jewish people at the forefront during the German occupation.However, we see that one this consensus had been broken in 1942 come to the implementation of the Final issue Vichy policy loses effectiveness as it is undermined by civil society. We witness that the French population despite being complicit largely did in fact have a great deal of influence over the policy of Vichy. Vichy France and the German occupation has and will continue to be a contentious issue in French history.Whilst it is irrefutable that German influence in the occupation had an influence in bringing about the anti-Semitic policy that proliferated under Vichy it is clear that Vichy had its own indigenous roots of anti-Semitism that almost provided this government with a historical inclination to act in the way it did. The complexity of the period disallows any sweeping judgement of the period however, an acknowledgement of the influen ce of German factors and an understanding of Frances own historical potential for the anti-Semitic policies allow for a nuanced appreciation of the period.Bibliography Jackson, Julian. France the Dark Years 1940-1944. Oxford Oxford University Press, 2003. Paxton, Robert. Vichy France Old Guard ad New Order. New York Columbia University Press, 2001. Sweets, John. Choices in Vichy France. New York Oxford University Press, 1994. Marrus, Michael and Paxton, Robert. Vichy France and the Jews. Stanford, California Stanford University Press, 1981. Vinen, Richard. The Unfree French Life under the Occupation capital of the United Kingdom Penguin Books, 2007. http//www. wikepedia. com