When does Free France stop being a Resistance movement and becomes the French State?

[Klausewitz]

France made Peace with Germany in 1940.
Then deGaulle went to France and declared that he would continue the war.
Problem is, that deGaulle had no standing.
He was not elected, not legitimized and in fact his status as a soldier meant that he had to follow directives from his government. A case could even be made that deGaulle was a traitor at this point.
In 1945 Free France was one of the United Nations and one of 4 powers sitting at the table when Germany capitulated.
When did the Free French move from traitors and renegades to the legitimate representatives of the French people?

 

[Attalus]

Free France became with certainty the sole representative of France after Overlord I guess, with France liberated and the GPRF established.
Quite a tricky question though since as you put it they were traitors at start and their position within the Allies was shaken lots of times. I think De Gaulle's position was secured in the eyes of the Allies with the creation of the CNR (National Resistance COuncil) which rallied behind him and offered him a really lacking domestic support.

 

[keynes2.0]

France made Peace with Germany in 1940.

What, all of the French? Or was it just the elected representatives voting on it? Do you happen to know the date of that vote or how many voted for and against?

 

[Culise]

What, all of the French? Or was it just the elected representatives voting on it? Do you happen to know the date of that vote or how many voted for and against?

I should assume, given the mention of "France" instead of "the French," that the intended term was to mean France-the-government, not French-the-people. And yes, what we today term the illegitimate government of Vichy France was indeed considered the legitimate and sole government of France in June 1940, duly empowered by the last electoral cycle to serve and represent the French people. Petain had been selected as Prime Minister due precisely to his intention to seek terms under, as far as I am aware, the constitutional powers duly vested in the National Assembly by the Constitution of the Third Republic, and contrasting with the lukewarm reception to de Gaulle in London, his ascension was regarded with significant popular support in the near term before the terms of the armistice were made clear and accepted. I'm a little curious, though. How many peaces were made by seeking a mass referendum of the entire population of the nation so vanquished? Does the absence of such make any peace automatically illegitimate? I'd see more of a point if you were talking about the subsequent vote for constitutional reform being put to popular referendum (this vote in the National Assembly occurred July 10, 569-80 with 18 abstentions, and was much more questionable under the laws of the Third Republic), or if you were contesting that it was a peace treaty on the grounds that it in fact technically was not a peace treaty at all (the June 22 surrender at Compiegne was only a temporary armistice, with a permanent peace settlement intended to follow after the end of the war), but quibbling based on the semantic definition of "France" as pertaining to a nation versus "France" as the summation of the French people seems an odd point to contest in this manner. (EDIT) That is, I'm not certain how it's actually relevant. Conceptual agglomerations of people by culture and/or nationality don't sign peace treaties directly in most polities; their governments do.

At any rate, Vichy itself broke off relations with the UK after their sneak-attack at Mers-el-Kebir, only after which London recognized Free France as the sole government (though this was in truth already likely soon to come, given the aforementioned British attack on the French navy). The US, Canada, and USSR all recognized Vichy France as well, the USSR withdrawing this only after Vichy stated their support for the German invasion of the USSR in 1941 and the US and Canada both only withdrew their recognition when the Germans occupied Vichy France in its entirety, removing even the fig leaf of independence. On the very far end, various smaller states only withdrew recognition in 1944 with the resignation of Petain, while the Australians apparently went to pains to maintain diplomatic relations with both sides until the end of the war in 1945, in spite of being at war. I would probably suggest that 1942 would be the earliest point that, at least diplomatically, the Free French become the heirs to the French State abroad, though due to the contentious issue of its leadership in the eyes of the US, not necessarily a Free France under de Gaulle. De facto, I would suggest that the Free French do not actually become the French state until the actual liberation of France, for which I think Attalus has an excellent date right on the nose.

EDIT: Sorry, some clarity tweaks.

 

[Henry IX]

De Gaulle was a French general who displayed a significant level of skill in the battle of France. Indeed in 1940 he was one of the few French commanders to have his reputation enhanced by the conflict and had been appointed to the French ministry as Under Secretary of State for National Defence and War. As such, when he fled to Britain with 100 thousand gold francs he was accepted by the British government as the individual best suited to leading the 'Free French'. In particular his ability to win over significant parts of the still intact colonial army was considered critically important.

As soon has he got to Britain he began to campaign for continued French resistance. Given that the BBC broadcast his speeches into France he was rapidly recognised as the leader of resistance there as well.

The transformation from renegades to legitimate government began over the period of the 19th - 21st of June 1940 with de Gaulle's Appeal of the 18th of June which announced his rejection of the upcoming armistice and the establishment of the Vichy regime with its lack of clear legitimacy. In addition the Free French accepted any French person who was opposed the occupation of France regardless of politics, from conservative Catholics to communists. Due this umbrella nature (compared to the narrow Fascist outlook of the Vichy regime) it was viewed as a representative of the general population of France, further enhancing its legitimacy.

From a legalistic standpoint, because Petain dissolved the French parliament and became a dictator he could no longer claim undisputed democratic legitimacy. The Free French (and indeed all subsequent French governments) always claimed that his regime was therefore illegitimate and so they had no need to follow its directives.

The British found it very useful to maintain the Free French forces from both a propaganda and military standpoint. Thus when the liberation of France was undertaken the Free French were able to move in as the presumptive government of France. This also made the governance of the liberated territories easy for the allies as there was a native and fairly legitimate government to step in, meaning that the Allies did not have to worry about any sort of civilian resistance to their forces.

Edit:
I was beaten to the post by Culise's post - this is not meant to dispute his argument, merely to document how a renegade general became accepted as the leader of France.

 

[Culise]

I was beaten to the post by Culise's post - this is not meant to dispute his argument, merely to document how a renegade general became accepted as the leader of France.

Actually, I think your post is much more insightful than mine regarding the rise of de Gaulle himself, which can in many respects be tied directly to the rise of the Free French, and the legal and popular underpinnings for the legitimacy of the Free French. My own post can only be said to look at the foreign support among the Allies for the Free French, without the consideration you've made regarding his support and the support for the Free French domestically in France and among the French population. Many governments can be said to be propped up by foreign powers; not all can be said to actually derive legitimacy either legalistically or from the people they govern. Your post illustrates just how the Free French were both. ^_^

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

I think the transition from somewhat illegitimate guerrilla war into a legitimate and functioning state really began with Operation Torch in 1942. With Darlan instated as High Commissioner of Northern France under Allied governance and Hitler's ordered occupation of Vichy France, Free France was the only independent French entity left standing.

 

[DoomBunny]

Some options:

27th November 1942 - End of Case Anton, occupation of Vichy, Free France left as only unoccupied element
3rd June 1944 - Foundation of the GPRF
31st August - GPRF moves to Paris, marking the real largescale liberation of French territory and setup of at least notionally functional government

 

[Klausewitz]

What, all of the French? Or was it just the elected representatives voting on it? Do you happen to know the date of that vote or how many voted for and against?

Yes, democracy has its problems.
So what is your point?

 

[keynes2.0]

I'm a little curious, though. How many peaces were made by seeking a mass referendum of the entire population of the nation so vanquished?

I'm a little curious. What part of my short post implied that I thought this was expected rather then ridiculous?

I asked about one thing: at what point did the vote happen whereby the government supported the peace and what body or electorate voted on it. The closest you appear to have come to an answer is saying that chosing Petain was implicitly supporting the peace.

Now I didn't explain my motivations so let me clarify now. My intent was to highlight the fact that the letter of the law didn't matter very much in these events. People were simply doing things and presenting them as a fait accompli. Discussing the legitimate government of France is thus discussing an entirely subjective judgement.

 

[Culise]

I'm a little curious. What part of my short post implied that I thought this was expected rather then ridiculous?

I asked about one thing: at what point did the vote happen whereby the government supported the peace and what body or electorate voted on it. The closest you appear to have come to an answer is saying that chosing Petain was implicitly supporting the peace.

Now I didn't explain my motivations so let me clarify now. My intent was to highlight the fact that the letter of the law didn't matter very much in these events. People were simply doing things and presenting them as a fait accompli. Discussing the legitimate government of France is thus discussing an entirely subjective judgement.

To me, asking if the armistice itself had been voted on by all of the French people or if it had instead only been "just" the elected representatives seemed highly odd, especially when you followed by requesting a date for this hypothetical vote that, it seemed by implication, would have given the armistice legitimacy. Given that the original post you were responding to did not bring up the matter at all (but rather, I would guess, assumed the legitimacy of the French government at this point by derivation from the formation of Petain's government under the procedures of the Third Republic), it seemed like the only reason to bring it up ex nihilo was to press for the idea that the armistice was illegitimate *because* it hadn't been put to popular referendum. I won't necessarily say it's ridiculous, per se, but it did seem unusual to bring it up out of nowhere, and even more so since the Third Republic did not have a legalistic framework in place to establish treaties by popular referendum to the best of my knowledge; if my knowledge is accurate, then such an attempt, in spite of being highly democratic, could be seen as possessing questionable legitimacy due to circumventing the established framework and procedures for the foreign policy of the state. I actually brought up an example that could be seen as such, where the National Assembly and Senate in a grand Congress voted to grant wide-ranging powers to Petain to establish a new constitution, which was and, especially today, is seen as being of questionable legitimacy. I hope that helps illustrate my own thought processes, and I apologize for misunderstanding.

Thank you for that clarification, however. That does indeed help clear matters quite a bit. Yes, when Reynaud proved unable to maintain his government in the face of defeatist sentiments and resigned after an informal sounding in his cabinet made it clear his intent to fight on from the UK made him a minority in his own government (likely because his proposal was shackled to the idea of a Franco-British Union), the appointment of Petain in his place was an implicit declaration of the intent to sue for peace. Also, yes, I can certainly see what you mean now insofar as "legitimacy" is a very tricky thing and rather subjective thing to pin down. Ultimately, a good case could be made that the Free French are only seen as legitimate today because they won on the battlefield, giving them the platform to establish the Fourth Republic. Given that they were started by a junior officer in a foreign country openly calling for defiance of the elected government of his nation in a call to arms, which would seem to be closer to sedition and treason in ordinary circumstances, certainly there was little in the way of legal or democratic force (at least, as expressed by election or referendum) behind him until the Fourth Republic was put to referendum after the war. Legitimacy is an even foggier notion than either of those, which may stem from but is not necessarily automatically tied to either, and in this case that is illustrated in spite of, or perhaps because we can point to several dates between 1940 and 1945 where the tide might be seen to turn.

 

[keynes2.0]

Given that they were started by a junior officer in a foreign country openly calling for defiance of the elected government of his nation in a call to arms,

In open defiance of the elected goverment? There was never a vote held on the matter of the terms of peace with Germany. One group of military officers decided that their mandate extended towards them making sweeping changes to foreign policy. The armistice turned out to be a defacto peace treaty on terms that nobody authorized. While the metropolitan officers took this view, a smaller group abroad simply didn't recognize these officers as having the authority to negotiate this peace and didn't recognize it. This is why I asked about the votes. You assume the government was legitimate but one

Now naturally in a republic one expects elected officials to exercise judgement in between elections but that's not what the "legitimate" government did. They swiftly suspended all rule of law and decided that power instead rested with a newly created autocracy with unelected officials.

So you are saying that De Gaulle was a traitor but there was no authority he was rebelling against. There was no democratic mandate he was ignoring and there was no republican rule of law that he was ignoring. One could very easily conclude that Petain was engaging in an illegal coup with the support of a foreign enemy and that the Free French were the only ones who weren't committing treason. Daddy swore an oath!

 

[DoomBunny]

Former PM resigns, nominates new PM from pro-Peace camp, new PM forms cabinet and decides to make peace.

Seems pretty legitimate to me.

 

[Attalus]

You can argue that the government was not legitimate after the 10th of July 1940 when Pétain was awarded with special powers and changed the Constitution. But even so he did with the vote of the Parliament so you still had that represantive legitimacy. It even enjoyed high popularity amongst the French people first. All signs point toward a high apraisal rate of the Maréchal in 1940, which then decreased as the war goes on.
So until the 10th of July De Gaulle is legally a traitor no matter how you put it. Even after he still lacks legitimacy like seen in Torch when Roosevelt wanted to put another officials in his place. Hence the need for the CNR.

 

[keynes2.0]

Seems pretty legitimate to me.

Does the French parliament work radically different from the American or British systems? Major treaties aren't supposed to be decided by de facto legislation by the head of government.

 

[Attalus]

Does the French parliament work radically different from the American or British systems? Major treaties aren't supposed to be decided by de facto legislation by the head of government.

The Third Republic was a Parliamentary System so de jure I think he should not have been able to do it this way without a vote from the Parliament. But it doesn't change the fact that Pétain still had more legitimacy than an exiled general in London, who had fled here even before this action when Pétain still had all the legitimacy you want.

 

[DoomBunny]

Does the French parliament work radically different from the American or British systems? Major treaties aren't supposed to be decided by de facto legislation by the head of government.

Not that I agree, but this is rather irrelevant to whether or not Petain's government was legitimate.

The Third Republic was a Parliamentary System so de jure I think he should not have been able to do it this way without a vote from the Parliament. But it doesn't change the fact that Pétain still had more legitimacy than an exiled general in London, who had fled here even before this action when Pétain still had all the legitimacy you want.

I'd imagine that calling for an armistice was probably legal, whether it was ratified or not after that was rather irrelevant, seeing as the French didn't have too much of a choice by then.

 

[keynes2.0]

The exile government was only in exile because they didn't recognize a de facto treaty that was never even codified. It's extremely relevant. The Free French movement wasn't separatism or anything, it was a movement to keep fighting.

 

[DoomBunny]

Indeed it was, and that movement was not the legitimate government of France. Petain's government had a far stronger claim, it was set up by Petain, a man who had come to power through fairly legitimate means.

 

[keynes2.0]

Indeed it was, and that movement was not the legitimate government of France. Petain's government had a far stronger claim, it was set up by Petain, a man who had come to power through fairly legitimate means.

The legitimacy of the government doesn't apply to the legitimacy of the action. Suppose the POTUS died and the Veep suspended elections via martial law while declaring himself POTUS for life. Soldiers who refused to support his decree of martial law wouldn't be traitors. They swore an oath to defend the constitution, not to unquestionably follow the orders of the POTUS. But if the POTUS dies there is no question that the Veep is the legitimate POTUS. Just because the office is legitimate doesn't legitimize the order.