Pétain - what else could he have done?

I wonder, could Petain extract better armistice terms from Germans (Paris, smaller occupation zone etc. )?

He expected to when subsequently negotiating a peace treaty. When agreeing to the June Armistice Petain & virtually every other French man expected a peace treaty to be negotiated in the autum/winter 1940 & the occupation to cease in 1941. From Petain down they were suprise when that did not happen. Inquiries made in the autum & winter left Petains government hanging & facing a indefinite occupation.
 
He expected to when subsequently negotiating a peace treaty. When agreeing to the June Armistice Petain & virtually every other French man expected a peace treaty to be negotiated in the autum/winter 1940 & the occupation to cease in 1941. From Petain down they were suprise when that did not happen. Inquiries made in the autum & winter left Petains government hanging & facing a indefinite occupation.

Oh, I understand that. But even then, maybe say having Paris as your capital instead of Vichy, might be better for Petain politically. Even in June.
 
He expected to when subsequently negotiating a peace treaty. When agreeing to the June Armistice Petain & virtually every other French man expected a peace treaty to be negotiated in the autum/winter 1940 & the occupation to cease in 1941. From Petain down they were suprise when that did not happen. Inquiries made in the autum & winter left Petains government hanging & facing a indefinite occupation.

Oh, I understand that. But even then, maybe say having Paris as your capital instead of Vichy, might be better for Petain politically. Even in June.

have always wondered about the double edged sword, if after the British raids in July and Sept. and Japanese moves on Indochina, the Germans might have made enough moves to have the Vichy regime as co-belligerent (in certain theaters)? they ended up fighting with the British over Syria anyways

Petain, what else could he have done?

not all answers to the question would be positive?
 
I wonder, could Petain extract better armistice terms from Germans (Paris, smaller occupation zone etc. )?
Not really : Vichy had very little to say on what happened, and its opinion was at best ignored, more generally dismissed. They had zero control or authority on armistice terms which were effectively and purposely vague enough that they were changed along Germans' interests, culiminating with the occupation of southern zone.
They were left with a significant administrative autonomy as long it was convenient under the implied condition that Occupation authorities could overturn every decision if needed.
 
the Germans might have made enough moves to have the Vichy regime as co-belligerent (in certain theaters)? they ended up fighting with the British over Syria anyways
That's the whole point : some people of Vichy regime DID proposed this after Mers-el-Kebir, which was systematically refused by Germany. Nazis simply didn't want a French army, even at their side, because it was against their goal to utterly and definitely crush France as a relevant, secondary or minor military (or even political) power.
 
That's the whole point : some people of Vichy regime DID proposed this after Mers-el-Kebir, which was systematically refused by Germany. Nazis simply didn't want a French army, even at their side, because it was against their goal to utterly and definitely crush France as a relevant, secondary or minor military (or even political) power.
Amusingly, it was a goal shared by many belligerents, including apparently Roosevelt. Thus de Gaulle kinda playing along with Churchill and Stalin to get a seat at the winners’ table.
 
Amusingly, it was a goal shared by many belligerents, including apparently Roosevelt. Thus de Gaulle kinda playing along with Churchill and Stalin to get a seat at the winners’ table.
That's a false equivalence (and honestly, leaning too much into "both sides were bad" territory, even if it's not your intent) :not only not giving Free France a seat equal to UK, US or USSR was blatantly stating the obvious when it come to respective power; but Roosvelt was wary of giving De Gaulle more legitimacy and authority over decisions for post-liberation France, thinking that Pétain (and later figures as Darlan or Giraud) had more legitimacy to do so.
It was frankly disputable even back then (and thanks to both Giraud's utter lack of political skills, but as well part of American public opinion, it went nowhere), but that's not comparable even by far to the stated Nazi goal to destroy France as a military force or as a national ensemble.
 
First, this thread will lead us to a dark place, if it has not yet already.

Second, is the argument was Petain awful for collaborating with the Nazis and what he could have done more to be a better fella, or is the argument what Petain accomplished during World War One outweighs his collaboration guilt? The reason I ask, is that the OP seems to specifically hone in on the first part, and yet more than half of those "defending" Petain in this thread are citing his WWI contributions. Is the thread about Petain's legacy overall, or is it about what Petain did during Occupation?

Because, Heck, if we're talking overall legacy, then (in my view) Benedict Arnold's contribution at the Battle of Saratoga to the American Independence far outweighed anything he did to help the British once he turned and, gosh darn it, let's lay a stars-and-stripes wreath on his tombstone and pour a banquet beer on the curb for one lost "patriot."

Last, German occupation policies during World War II were subject to the treatment of locals per the idiotic Nazi creed, geographic location, the tides of war and the whims of the local satraps. "Marianne in Chains" is a decent book, in my view, in explaining how the attitudes of the German occupiers were restrained due to the age, educational background and worldview of most of the men in charge of the Occupation. All of this is to say, I don't buy, for one New York minute, the idea that Petain helped France (Vichy or Occupied) avoid a much more terrible fate had he not collaborated. My view. Opinion. Not fact. But that the line I draw in the sand there. I got zero sympathy for Petain, because France was not Ukraine and the hard and awful choices made by people in Kiev who then had to live with their choices for the rest of their lives and the lives of their child and their children's children is not something Petain ever had to face. "Collaboration" is a nuanced subject, but it loses a lot of its nuance the further West in Europe you travel. Once again, just one man's view.
 
Is the thread about Petain's legacy overall, or is it about what Petain did during Occupation?
I believe the two are linked. His contributions to WWI was immense, and if there's nothing else he could have done and OTL is "as good as it gets", then he was basically at the wrong place at the wrong time.
If his responsibility is engaged and he made things worse than they had to be, then damnatio memoria is well deserved.

The comics version of France Fights On definitely has no love for the man. The fact he pushed for surrender would already be questionable (but Thiers did the same).
 
Top