Talk:Philippe Pétain/Archive 1

review of article
Review of Wikipedia Article “Philippe Petain”

By Mark Cannizzaro 3/18/06

The early part of the Wikipedia article “Philippe Petain” is well balanced, going over Petain’s birth, military education, and military experience during World War I. Though sparse, the section on his involvement in the French government after World War I is also relatively even in its tone. However, once the article reaches World War II, its maintenance of objectivity fails at certain points. The article highlights the more negative aspects of Petain’s reign in a few sections. It is understandable that Petain would emerge from any neutral article with the reader understanding his harmful effects on France. The Wikipedia article, however, subtly shifts the tone of the article with phrases like: “Neither Petain nor his successive Deputies, Pierre Laval or Francois Darlan, resisted requests by the Germans to indirectly aid the Axis Powers”. While this statement is true, the wording of the sentence implies that it was wrong for Petain and his deputies to not resist the German’s request, which puts the author’s opinion in an article that should be as neutral as possible. Even more obvious is the article’s last section, which compares Petain to reviled historical figures like Benedict Arnold and Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna. The section explains the prevailing contemporary view of Petain in France; however, it also makes obvious that the author thinks unfavorably of him, which is something the reader does not need to know. Thus, the Wikipedia article on Philippe Petain wants the reader to believe that Petain is a very negative figure in French history. The major implicit assumption of the article is that absolutely no positive developments came out of Philippe Petain’s administration of the French State. All of the policies of the Petain regime mentioned in the article are either characterized with very unfavorable terms (such as “Petain immediately used his new powers to order harsh measures”) or linked to collaboration with the Nazis, which carries an obvious negative stigma. However, this presents the reader a very once sided view of his regime. There is no mention of the Vichy’s regime’s most important contribution to France, its acceleration of modernization through the creation of programs like worker representation in factories (Popkin, 281). This achievement, while certainly not negating the harm Petain’s regime did to France, should not be underestimated since one of France’s main occupations after the war was the rebuilding/modernization of its industry. I find that the most convincing aspect of the article is its portrayal of Petain as more than a simple collaborator. The article shows how Petain merely pretended that Vichy France was neutral during World War II, even when he had significant control over the country (without major German interference). It mentions that Petain actively helped the Germans crush the French resistance, supplied them with supplies of manufactured goods and foodstuffs, and ordered France’s colonies to fight against Allied forces. Also, the article explains that Petain’s conservative assembly took advantage of the situation to enact a radical conservative program known as the National Revolution. This opportunism makes it obvious to me that Philippe Petain was a far more enthusiastic supporter of the Germans than many collaborators were during the war. The least convincing part of the article is its comparison of Philippe Petain to the infamous Benedict Arnold. First off, I must admit that they do have two important similarities. Both Arnold and Petain were celebrated war heroes who fell from grace due to collaboration with their country’s enemy. In addition, both their names are synonymous with the word “traitor” in their respective countries. However, there is one major difference between these two despised figures that makes them imperfect comparisons. Benedict Arnold purposefully betrayed his country in order to pay off his debts and to get back at those who had wronged him. Philippe Petain on the other hand certainly did not view his collaboration with Germany as a betrayal of France; on the contrary, he viewed it as the only way to maintain French sovereignty and to bring about the National Revolution. This distinction makes quite a bit of difference because it centers on the question of intent, which is important in most considerations of wrongdoing. In my opinion, Arnold’s crime was worse from the standpoint of intent since he knowingly betrayed his country, whereas Petain was doing, albeit misguidedly, what he believed was right. Therefore, the comparison of Philippe Petain and Benedict Arnold is the least convincing part of the article. There is no formal bibliography or works cited at the end of the article. Instead, there is a small section called “See Also” which points to some links which are mostly useless or impertinent to the article. There is only one source in this section, Simon Kitson’s Vichy Web. It seems to be a pretty good source, with many sections on various aspects of the Vichy government, including primary documents. However, I believe that the author of the article may not have used the article as thoroughly as they should have, since there are a few factual omissions in the article that need to be addressed. At the least, a few more sources should have been consulted in order to guarantee that the article had a well balanced perspective on the life of Philippe Petain. One thing that the article did very well was provide information on the people involved in Petain’s administration. While the specific names of the ministers may not be extremely important to remember, the table of Petain’s administrations provides a look at how his cabinet was made up and what were the priorities of the Vichy regime. It also informs the leader that Petain did not act alone in collaborating with Germany; he had the help of various sympathizers and government officials. However, there were two areas of historical omission which significantly hurt the article. First, there was no mention of Petain’s activities during World War II, which I believe would seem curious to most readers since he was such an important figure in World War I. To the informed reader it is very important because Petain’s strategy of defensive war may have been the most significant factor that led to the defeat of France’s forces by an outnumbered German military during World War II (Popkin, 280). This glaring error points perhaps to a lack of research on the subject on the part of the author. The second error, however, is even more serious. The article speaks of the National Revolution carried out during the Vichy regime, states its general intent, and mentions a few actions taken personally by Petain. However, the great bulk of the changes made by Petain’s administration in France are not mentioned. Nowhere were its reorganization of education, promotion of traditional family and rural values, corporatist reorganization of industry, or aggressive rounding up of French Jews mentioned in the article (Popkin, 280-283). The rounding up of Jews for German authorities seems like a particularly irresponsible error, especially given the enormous loss of life it caused and the devastating psychological impact it had on France after the war. Overall, the article gives an incomplete view of Philippe Petain’s life, leaving out extremely important facts about his negative and positive impact on France.

Works Cited Popkin, Jeremy. A Brief History of Modern France. pp. 280-283.

Emac687 21:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Philippe Pétain v. Santa Anna
As of 05 April 2006, Pétain's article ended with this paragraph:

"Nowadays, in France, the word pétainisme suggests an authoritarian and reactionary ideology, driven by the nostalgia of a rural, agricultural, traditionalist, Catholic society. Petain himself is generally regarded in the same manner as Vidkun Quisling is in Norway, or Benedict Arnold in the United States, and perhaps to some minor degree as Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna in Mexico."

Personally, I would argue that the similarities between Pétain and Santa Anna are trivial, and, as such, I have edited the article accordingly. Historical analogies are always useful, but I believe that the Vidkun Quisling reference is far more practical and informative. Mingus ah um


 * The article was reverted to include Santa Anna. I have again removed the reference.  If you have problems with that, talk to me (here, preferably). --(Mingus ah um 19:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

Photo
I don't think this man is the Maréchal Pétain, this is a mistake. CB001 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it is, its source is a 1919 book on the First World War. Эйрон Кинни  (t) 04:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Look the other photo, he doesn't look like the other one. Different nose, different eyes, different chin (cleft in the chin)... One of them is fat, not the other. I will ask on the french wiki if it's really Petain or not. CB001 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparentely it's him (as here). CB001 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, user:Roby thinks this man is Joffre. CB001 16:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Petain and France.
I've made one small alteration. Although the armistice of 1940 left northern and western France under German occupation, the whole was under the nominal authority of Vichy, not just the unoccupied south.

My more general concern is the preception of Petain that this article presents. I see he has been included in the category of 'French Fascists', though on what grounds I cannot imagine. His regime was authoritarian and collaborationist, yes, but it cannot really be defined as Fascist in the Italian or German sense. Politically Petain resembles Admiral Horthy rather than Hitler or Mussolini. It seems both unhistorical and absurd to try to place him alongside such obvious traitors as Vidkun Quisling, when he represented at the time a majority French view. White Guard 01:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted the comparisons to Quizling, Ben Arnold etc as being uncited, POV and, in some cases, fairly unsupportable. Epeeist smudge 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
I have a little doubt : do you think the "Chief of State" mention in the infobox should lead to President of the French Republic, even though he was not ? He may not have President, but he was nonetheless France's head of state. Wedineinheck 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Question
When was he sentenced to death? Thanks in advance. 84.229.252.73 (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's quite urgent, a quick answer will be received with much generosity. 84.229.252.73 (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He was sentenced to death on 15 August 1945. Daniel*D ✍ 14:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pétain as Head of State
This is a frequent and unfortunate (let alone dangerous) error: Pétain was never Head of any State. The Vichy government was never a State, it was a government of fact, not a government of law (which is the definition of the State). When Pétain abolished the Republic, Statehood switched to the Free France and De Gaulle was Head of State from 1940, not just in 1944. LeoDV 09:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Revisionist History 101. When the lawfully elected government of a country and its lawfully elected representatives voluntarily choose someone as their new leader, that person is indeed the head of state. Napoleon abolished the French Republic in his day, too. I guess he was never really Emperor of France and that Louis XVIII's reign as King actually started in 1795. Hey, we'd like to pretend Warren Harding and Richard Nixon were never Presidents of the United States, but we can't just erase them. Neither can France erase Philippe Pétain because they don't like what he did. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing to see that people still believe in De Gaulle's argumentation that the Vichy government was legal but not legitim. This statement has absolutely no meaning! Petain has been given power to rule France by a legally elected representative body! De Gaulle was nothing in 1940, no even approved by any legal body... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.219.25 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Petain was indeed head of state of vichy state from 1940 to 1944 but I don't think there that between Vichy and Free france (then CFLN), we can say that one represented france and not the other. The situation is more complicate I think and the only reality is that france is split in two and i don-t believe we can say "this is france" on one of the two parts.. Then in the late 1942, the vichy state disappears allthough officially it continues to exist: Vichy have power on no territory, have no army, no fleet, only a police and a militia while the CFLN have a large territory, an army, a military staff (led by general Giraud for the army, general Bouscat for the air force and admiral Lemonnier for the navy), a true power...(clems78) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clems78 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Also the debate still exist on how was vichy regime legal. Because the exceptionnal vote of the 10 th july wasn't allow by the third republic constitution, i think or something like this. But i understand the question "petain was he a head of state of france ?" but not that way. First, Vichy regime is not considered legal by the french republic, but this doesn't mean it was the case in 1940. Then, to be a head of state, i agree that you don't need to have come lawfully to power to be one. But petain is mainly a puppet, unlike your examples (napoleon, Nixon...) so he can be considered as a head of state but in the reality, he wasn't really (he had a power of decision but he never did anything against germany so he wasn't an independant leader). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.95.94.68 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence under "Vichy"
An editor just tried to repair the following sentence: "The social and political divisions in France were too great, however, and Reynaud had misjudged Pétain, a man who despised the corruption, inefficiency and political fragmentation of the French Third Republic."

While the editor's motives and judgment were sound, the sentence is not. I think it says far too much: 1) Social and political divisions were great. How great? Can't find that out in one sentence! 2) Reynaud brought in the wrong man a) because Reynaud tolerated corruption and Petain did not? Well, why DID he bring him in? b) what did toleration of inefficiency have to do with social divisions? Need a paragraph or two. Much too confusing IMO. Not too sure what the original author (probably edited!) was trying to say. Student7 (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

World War I
The quote "On les aura!" would be more literally translated "We will have them!" Dick Kimball (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC). Yes but it is a very common French slang ("argot")expression to say: "on les aura" or "on va les avoir" meaning : " we are going to get them !" . This is still commonly used still today ! particularly in sports !!!

Between the Wars
Between the wars, Maréchal Pétain lived in the village of Villeneuve-Loubet on the Côte d'Azur (French Riviera). Dick Kimball (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Darlan/operation torch
Britanica reports that evidently, petain personaly instructed darlan to support the allies and seems to portray him as being a something of a selfless man who intended to prevent someone truly (in his opinon) evil, ie leval, from assuming power of government.

anyone know much about this?74.138.206.229 (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Roll back
Someone needs to roll back the vandalism.--66.229.23.225 (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Henri
I've heard/read Pétain referred to as 'Henri Pétain'... i feel this should be added as one of the 'Also Commonly Known As' names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.117.40 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Henri was his actual first surname but his second surname, Philippe, is much more commonly used. Most people don't even know about Henri. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

World War II and Vichy France
There is a very odd sentence in this section of the article. It reads: "He later held a meeting with a man by the name of Mr. Kassner for absolute control of all of France, only to have his offer turned down, due to a lack of interest, on behalf of Mr. Kassner's superior."

There is no citation for this claim, and no explanation of who Mr Kassner or his superior might be. Is this a spurious addition, or has it some basis in fact? If the former, it should be removed. If the latter, it needs expansion and justification. Solaricon (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1942-1944?
Why is nothing listed of his governments from 1942-1944, after the excruciating detail of the first two years?

Can someone please put in the info about the government for the MAJORITY of his reign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.129.155 (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Was Pétain's antisemitic ?
I wonder if the marechal Pétain was antisemitic or not. Because it's him who wrote the "Lois sur le statut des juifs" the Nuremberg Laws french if he were really antisemitic shall we put him in the rubrique "Anti-Semitic People" ?
 * In fact, historians say Pétain has gone farther in antisemitism than the Nazi ordered him. Barraki (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He seemed to have no problems sending french jews to nazi death camps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.232.32 (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was Laval who did that? --Michael K Smith Talk 21:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced statement that appears nowhere in the French article
Calling Pétain an ambiguous figure in modern France is not accurate and would need a source in any event.Pistolpierre (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Modern conclusions?
Can we have a section on assessment of Petain from modern historians? What do people conclude now about his options and decisions? Is he to be considered as a bad guy today?

IceDragon64 (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Académie Française
... in 1931, the year he was elected a Fellow of the Académie française. Another source gives the year as 1929, although I don't know who is right. Also, while "Fellow" may be technically correct, "member" or just "elected to the Académie française." might be clearer. The relevant quote from that source:
 * Ghostwriters, notably Charles de Gaulle, wrote books to be published under Pétain's name until the Marshal, who read little and wrote almost nothing, was elected to the Académie française in 1929.

☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Rank & Honors
As a result of his trial for collaboration with Nazi Germany he was stripped of all rank and honors save for the title of marshal of France which was granted by an act of parliament and could not be stripped.

So the infobox should be edited to reflect his lack of rank and remove the legion of honor award which was revoked. Archer1973 (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)