-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
1943, He resigned for Laval.
It wasn't health reasons, he was in good health long after he resigned.
Surely by the same logic Max von Baden, the signatories of Versailles, and indeed, most cabinet ministers (to a lesser extent) at some point are traitors?
From what I've read, did Max von Baden sabotage every attempt to fight back? Was there any mutiny/open revolt in French cities in 1940? Had the French Army say "we cannot fight any longer, call for peace NOW"?
But again this is really the point; calling for peace alone is hardly treason. Or rather, treason itself is a fairly meaningless offence, because it essentially amounts to "Did you work against the government, and did you lose" rather than a genuine indictment of working against one's country.
Consider a few of the following:
Guy Fawkes
Benedict Arnold (twice)
The Easter Rebels
The French Revolutionaries
Klaus Fuchs
I would argue that of these, only Fuchs was really a traitor (okay, maybe Arnold the second time); he was motivated to work against 'his' country and government. Guy Fawkes, Benedict Arnold, and the French Revolutionaries were all working against the state, but not necessarily against the nation; in their minds they were working with the national interest in mind to achieve the best for their country. Whilst all were certainly guilty of treason they were not moral traitors so much as people with a different set of political values. The Easter Rebels meanwhile were also clearly traitors, and also clearly working against both their government, and their country (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), but did so in support of what they saw as actually being their country (Ireland in its own right).
Petain falls into the same category as Fawkes, Arnold, the French Revolutionaries, etc... IMO.
He didn't resigned... What happened is that he understood in 1943 (at a time where Allies had liberated French North Africa and where Germans directly occupy the formerly so-called French "Free zone") that the tide of war had changed. So he tried to change a bit his regime so it would be more acceptable to Americans, in order that they'll not treat him as a vanquished once they'll land in France. He wanted to announce that, in his new regime, the National Assembly would chose his successor... Germany didn't accepted that, because it might had threaten the succession right of Laval (who was quite loved by German). Pétain was forced to renounce to his declaration.
He stay away from power six weeks (without resigning) to show he wasn't happy with that, then did practice again the power and accepted Nazi demands. That is the very exceptional moment where France started to experience fascism I've talk about few post before. At this moment, the ideological line and practice of the Regime is no longer counter-revolutionary but fascist. It is symbolised by the entry in the government of Darnan (Order and Home Affairs), Henriot (Information and Propaganda) and Déat (Labour and National Solidarity).
However it is true that at the end of 1944, in Sigmaringen, he refused to continue to practice power. It was then a matters of months before Axis definitively lose the war and one could suspect that he was really preoccupied of his future trial in France. He had in mind to present himself as a "prisoner" of Germans...
The Germans occupied the Vichy pretty much as soon as Torch took place.
The thing is, Petain resigned months before that.
The only way you could use that argument is if Petain had complete knowledge of what was going on in the Eastern Front- unlikely given his position.
Also, power-hungry people don't give up at the first sign of trouble.
I've wrote in the message to which you answer that Pétain never resigned, so if you are trying to insist on that point, you should present some sources supporting your allegation he would had. Especially as it seem to constitute a key point of your demonstration.
Did you know that, soon after Torch, Pétain was nicknamed Pétoche ("fright", "fear" in French slang).
Last edited:
Why?
Fuchs was a German national who was a communist who gained British citizenship and spied on the British.... how much of this is 'his' country and government?
Arguably his 'nation' had always been the Soviet Union anyway...
I've wrote in the message to which you answer that Pétain never resigned, so if you are trying to insist on that point, you should present some sources supporting your allegation he would had. Especially as it seem to constitute a key point of your demonstration.
Did you know that, soon after Torch, Pétain was nicknamed Pétoche ("fright", "fear" in French slang).
Laval returned to power in April 1942. Torch happened in November.
He resigned more than 2 months before Torch had occurred- and again, he probably didn't know much more about what was going on, compared to the average person at the time.
He elected to take up British, not Soviet, citizenship. You can argue that he never betrayed Germany because he subsequently defected to the DDR and that that was his real country, but he definitely betrayed his country of adoption. If the Soviets were ever his country then he would have chosen to reside there, either before or after his sentence
Well, working for the British, then giving away secrets; in other words, betraying Britain. But yes, even then this basically goes to show my point.
Benedict Arnold is a textbook definition of a traitor
To what? As I said, the second time was personally motivated and so qualifies quite well, but was his original act treason?
I do not rate his initial rebellion as treason, for his "country" was in this case the one he was born in, and in open revolt. He would not have been a traitor had he originally remained true to the crown either.
But his second switch, handing the plans of West Point over to Major Andre, accepting a hefty bribe, and then leading troops into battle against his former comrades? That is the height of treason.
And the prison ships were humane, lovely accomodations, definetly not high on the list of Tory war crimes
What is being a spy then?
I do not mean that facetious:
Would you say a Spy adopting another nationality to spy on that nation would then be a traitor?
Or does it count 'what's in his heart?'
And the prison ships were humane, lovely accomodations, definetly not high on the list of Tory war crimes
It's not really a war crime if its cruel and usual punishment as opposed to cruel and unusual. Prison hulks were a mainstay of the British penal system until the 19th Century.
Tarring and feathering though, there's a war crime for you.
Fuchs wasn't really a spy in the traditional sense: spies infiltrate networks in order to discover and pass on information. Fuchs was an individual who contributed to the Anglo-American nuclear programme, then willfully passed on this information to the Soviets for ideological reasons. In other words, he found himself part of a useful network with useful info, and chose to pass this info on to the KGB. He didn't become a nuclear scientist deliberately in order to give out nuclear secrets.
It's a subtle distinction, but I'd say that would be the difference between a traitor and a spy in this context.
I think I am hung up on the betrayal implied in traitor.
The way I understand Fuchs' loyalties his first were always to communism... and those he did not betray.
The way I understand Fuchs' loyalties his first were always to communism... and those he did not betray.
Benedict Arnold is a textbook definition of a traitor
Well he did join that treasonous rebellion against his king but at the end he recalled his proper loyalties.