The Facist Social Republic of Italy...

[michael mills]

If one wants to make a comparison between France and Italy in terms of their relationship to Germany during the Second World War, then the truest counterpart of Mussolini after his reinstalment by his German rescuers would be De Gaulle in his role as leader of the so-called Free French.

Let us observe the similarities.

1. France

France, in alliance with Britain, declares war on Germany.

France is defeated, and German forces invade France. The existing French Government resigns and appoints Petain as its legal successor. Petain negotiates an armistice with Germany, after which he continues in power as head of the legal French government.

De Gaulle, a junior minister in the former French Government, goes to Britain where he sets up a rival government, which he claims to be the true government of France, even though it does not control any part of Metropolitan France. His claim is based on the fact that his government is continuing the alliance with Britain.

De Gaulle's rival government does not control any part of Metropolitan France, and is recognised only by Britain and Britain's allies (even the United states does not recognise it). For all practical purposes, de Gaulle's rival government is a puppet of Britain, being entirely dependent on that country for its continued existence.

Some parts of the French Empire recognise de Gaulle's government, and some parts of the French armed forces join it. There is fighting in parts of the French Empire between forces loyal to the legal French Government under Petain and forces loyal to de Gaulle's rival government.

After the Allied invasion of French North Africa, a government is set up there that claims to be, and is recognised by the Allies as, the legitimate government of France. After some squabbles, that government is merged with that of de Gaulle, with de Gaulle recognised by the Allies as its head.

After the Allies drive the Germans out of France, the government headed by de Gaulle assumes control over all of France.

2. Italy

The Italian Government under Mussolini declares war on Britain and France as an ally of Germany.

Italy is defeated, and Allied forces invade it. The Italian Government deposes Mussolini as its leader, and appoints Badoglio as his legal successor. Badoglio negotiates an armistice with the Allies, and then continues in power as the legal ruler of Italy, until replaced by Bonomi.

Mussolini is rescued by the Germans, who reinstate him as head of a rival Italian government, which claims to be the legitimate government of Italy based on the fact that it is continuing the alliance with Germany. Mussolini's rival government does control a large part of Italy due to the fact that German forces had moved in after Badoglio's armitice with the Allies and prevented the Allies from occupying the whole country.

Mussolini's rival government is recognised only by Germany and its allies. For all practical purposes it is a puppet of Germany, being dependent on that country for its continued existence.

Parts of the Italian administration in northern and central regions recognise Mussolini's rival government, and parts of the Italian armed forces join it. There is fighting in Italy between forces loyal to the legitimate Badolglio Government and forces loyal to Mussolini's rival government.

Eventually the Allies defeat the Germans, and Mussolini's rival government collapses.

Comparison between France and Italy:

The main difference between the French and Italian situations is that the legal Government of France under Petain did not declare war on its former ally Britain, whereas the legal government of Italy under Badoglio did declare war on its former ally Germany.

The other main difference is that the rival French government under de Gaulle prevailed over the legal French Government under Petain because it was allied to the winners, whereas in Italy it was the legal government under Badolglio that was allied to the winners, and hence was able to prevail over Mussolini's rival government.

It could be argued that the rival French government under de Gaulle, from the time it was created in 1940 until the Allied conquest of French North Africa at the end of 1942, was far more of a puppet of Britain than Mussolini's rival Italian government was of Germany, for the following reasons.

During the period 1940-42, de Gaulle's rival government did not control any part of Metropolitan France, and only small parts of the French Empire. Until the end of 1942, the greater part of the French armed forces remained loyal to the legal french Government under Petain, and defended it against Allied attempts to seize French colonial territory on behalf of de Gaulle's rival government.

By contrast, the rival Italian government under Mussolini remained in control of large parts of Italy, and also gained the loyalty of large parts of the Italian administration and armed forces. The part of the Italian State structure that rallied to Mussolinmi's rival government was at least as large as the part that remained loyal to the legal government of Badoglio, and was far larger than the part of the French State structure that transferred its loyalty in 1940 to de Gaulle's rival government.

[Cartaphilus]

Congratulations, Michael, you're a brilliant man.

Many times has been established a correspondence between Vichy and Saló, although the real equivalence is between Saló and De Gaulle.

De facto, Vichy regime ceased to exist in November 1942, when South France was invaded by germans and italians. From that moment ceased to exist two Frances (one legal and collaborationist with Axis, and other allegal and sponsored by Great Britain). The exiled french government in Sigmaringen had not any real power.

In Italy, Social Republic ceased to exist in April 1945, when a partisan uprising overthrew and killed Mussolini. From taht moment ceased to exist two Italies (one legal and friend of the Allies, and other allegal and established by Germany as a puppet state).


Right now I have a question: the french territories of Syria, Lebanon or Madagascar, conquered "manu military" by Great Britain, were after the conquest under De Gaulle's autority, or were under british military ocupation?

Thanks for your participation.

[madmike61]

After Operation Ironclad, Madagascar were administrated by the free-france general Paul Legentilhomme.

Syria and Lebanon were also administrated by free-frenchs, until 1946.

But is a false problem: the southern Italy was administrated, in reality, by the AMG-AMGOT until 12-31-1945; the AMG stamped also money (the am-lire, Allied Military Currency) for the territories.

In all: there is no difference, substantially, between the Salò state and the Vichy state, and also, until the end of the war, the Italian (Monarch) state. All of these, need a 'protector' to survive, and 'indipendence' was just a word.

[Cartaphilus]

But Petain' s France had own armed formes (real armed formes, not as Saló), had control over its empire (Saló didn't control even territories that where under Axis contro, as Dodecanese or Albania), had international recognition (Saló only by Axis Powers), embassies around all the world...

Between 1940 and 1942 Petain's France was almost a sovereing nation, didn't depend for its existence on the help of other countries, was able to fend off enemy attacks (Dakar, Thailand War...)... In contrast, Saló totally dependent of Germany for their existence, their defense and international recognition.

As Michael told, Saló's equivalent wasn't Vichy, but De Gaulle "Free France".

[madmike61]

Well.... the Vichy Regime was acknowledged as the official government of France, almost until july 1940, even by Great Britain: who bombing the ships at Mers el Kebir....

USA recognize the Vichy governement hoped to use American influence to encourage those elements in the Vichy government opposed to military collaboration with Germany. For middle east bases, for example.

USSR have diplomatic relationships (as with nazi Germany...) until Barbarossa.

So: was just a useful way of diplomatic relationships, like Austtalia (who have relashionships with both Vichy and FreeFrench until the end of the war...). But all in all, the semi-fascist, and racist, Vichy regime was a puppet state on German protection.

[Panzermahn]

It could be argued that the rival French government under de Gaulle, from the time it was created in 1940 until the Allied conquest of French North Africa at the end of 1942, was far more of a puppet of Britain than Mussolini's rival Italian government was of Germany,

Michael, you summed it correctly! In fact one could argued that De Gaulle was a collaborator with Britain since the Vichy Government was the official government of France from 1941-42 (rather than De Gaulle's self-proclaimed grandeur of the "Free French" in London where a table, a chair plus a microphone connected to the BBC was enough to form a government) and was even recognised by United States until 1942.

If the Axis has prevailed in WW2, De Gaulle would had been judged a traitor and a collaborator rather than Petain or Laval

[Dili]

If the Axis has prevailed in WW2, De Gaulle would had been judged a traitor and a collaborator rather than Petain or Laval

And? That doesn't mean the Vichy Government was legitimate. For that matter not Hitler either...
For example it was the Vichy Government that tolerated to the rounding of French citizens, Jews mostly, to be gassed in concentration camps. Is this the act of a legitimate Government ? Note that Fascist Italy was a German ally and refused to collaborate in that kind of stuff.

[michael mills]

For example it was the Vichy Government that tolerated to the rounding of French citizens, Jews mostly, to be gassed in concentration camps. Is this the act of a legitimate Government ?

Yes.

It is not the actions of a government that determine whether it is legitimate, but the manner in which it came to power.

Petain was the legitimate ruler of the French State, since he had been voted full powers by the National Assembly, which was the legitimate government of France at the time of the vote.

The French Government under Petain had the legal right to deport from its sovereign territory residents who were not French citizens. It also had the legal right to revoke the French citizenship granted to persons who had not been born in France and had previously been aliens.

That right to deport non-citizens is exactly the same right under which the present French Government deports Gypsies back to Romania.

What happens to the deportees, whether Jews back in 1942 or Gypsies in our own day, is the legal responsibility of the receiving government, not of the French Government.

The exercise of the legal right of a government to deport non-citizens in no way detracts from its legitimacy, although it might be argued that it detracts from its moral standing.

[Loïc]

No, sorry the regime wasn't so legitimate as described (or even so legal as usually said) or the meaning of the word is different in french and english
Pétain did a coup d'état the 11th july 1940 as proclaiming himself the only legitimate authority as "chief of state" but the Parlement didn't give or allow that, according to the parlementary vote of the 10th july the national legitimacy should be shared with assemblies
theorically the new political regime should receive a popular vote giving it the legitimacy, when this vote was done ? : never
so Pétain's regime is irregular since the beggining, and more especially illegitimate with the collaboration-treason with the ennemy occupying the country and staying there even after november 1942

La loi du 10 juillet 1940 dispose:
« L'Assemblée nationale donne tout pouvoir au gouvernement de la République, sous l'autorité et la signature du maréchal PÉTAIN, à l'effet de promulguer par un ou plusieurs actes une nouvelle Constitution de l'État français. Cette Constitution devra garantir les droits du travail, de la famille et de la patrie.
Elle sera ratifiée par la nation et appliquée par les Assemblées qu'elle aura créées. »

"the new constitution will be ratified by the Nation and enforced by the news Assemblies"
France didn't see a ratification by the French nation and a new Parlement before 1944

[madmike61]

this is exaclty the history.

[michael mills]

The fact that the constitution of the new French State that Petain was authorised to promulgate was never ratified by popular assemblies did not render the administration of President Petain illegitimate.

He was given full power by the National Assembly to promulgate by one or a number of acts a constitution that guaranteed the rights of work, the family, and the fatherland. That shows that he was authorised to replace the republican constitution based on liberty, equality and fraternity with one based on the new values, which had been chosen by the existing French Government, not imposed by Petain.

Striuctly speaking, until the new constitution was ratified, the government of Petain remained provisional, but that does not at all mean that it was not legitimate. As long as its acts were consistent with the aims of the new constitution, namely the protection of the values of work, the family and the fatherland, it was fully legitimate.

[Loïc]

Authorized to replace the republican constitution ?
Certainly not, that is an other "cardinal" point totally and illegally ignored by Petain establishing a personal dictatorship under german control
"the republican form of the govt can't be subject of a revision"

But Petain was too unable to protect the families, and especially the fatherland still occcupied by the ennemy and totallly occupied by november 1942
as said the French people about the new values : forced work/ separated family/ sold fatherland,
Travail forcé - Famille séparée - Patrie vendue
nearly all the French families had a POW in Germany or a young sent to the forced labour in the IIIrd Reich, and all that in a country divided in 6 zones from zone annexed de facto like Alsace-Moselle to others separated like Nord Pas-de-Calais, colonized like Ardennes-Lorraine
so he can't be regarded as legitimate when he was unable to be a true chief of state, not only for the whole Empire (where territories recognized Free France or the CFLN in Algiers) but even for the metropolitan territory, unable to accomplish the mission given by the Parlement and the protector defender of the French nation he claimed to be and maintain the national and territorial integrity or restore the independance

[madmike61]

sometimes it is amazing to see how in the English-speaking world does not understand what was Europe under German occupation. There is talk of France or Italy as if they were that they could freely choose political alliances and so on.

Germany had won the war in Europe, everyone had to obey, in one way or another, to the will of the Germans. is simply useless to think that you could do differently: those who did not follow the will was sent to a German concentration camp.

Thinking that of Vichy France, or RSI, would be free to follow its own autonomous policy is, without doubt, very far from reality.

[Panzermahn]

No, sorry the regime wasn't so legitimate as described (or even so legal as usually said) or the meaning of the word is different in french and english
Pétain did a coup d'état the 11th july 1940 as proclaiming himself the only legitimate authority as "chief of state" but the Parlement didn't give or allow that, according to the parlementary vote of the 10th july the national legitimacy should be shared with assemblies
theorically the new political regime should receive a popular vote giving it the legitimacy, when this vote was done ? : never
so Pétain's regime is irregular since the beggining, and more especially illegitimate with the collaboration-treason with the ennemy occupying the country and staying there even after november 1942

La loi du 10 juillet 1940 dispose:
« L'Assemblée nationale donne tout pouvoir au gouvernement de la République, sous l'autorité et la signature du maréchal PÉTAIN, à l'effet de promulguer par un ou plusieurs actes une nouvelle Constitution de l'État français. Cette Constitution devra garantir les droits du travail, de la famille et de la patrie.
Elle sera ratifiée par la nation et appliquée par les Assemblées qu'elle aura créées. »

"the new constitution will be ratified by the Nation and enforced by the news Assemblies"
France didn't see a ratification by the French nation and a new Parlement before 1944

So did the Free French of De Gaulle were ratified by the French nation and a new Parliament in 1941 (apart from being ratified by the BBC, that is)? In fact, it was not even a government at all from a literal point of view as there were no cabinet or appointed ministers. In fact, when "Free French" were set up in 1941, it was, at that time, a collection of military officers and soldiers under the de Gaulle's illusionary grandeur with fantasies of political pretensions without any recognised sovereignity and diplomatic recognition (except by London and BBC, that is)

You said collaboration and treason with the enemy but that is only from one perspective. It is also can be said that de Gaulle collaborated and committed treason against the legitimate Petain government of France by waging resistance against Petain.

By the way, de Gaulle was indeed sentenced to death in absentia by Petain's government for treason

[Panzermahn]

sometimes it is amazing to see how in the English-speaking world does not understand what was Europe under German occupation. There is talk of France or Italy as if they were that they could freely choose political alliances and so on.

Germany had won the war in Europe, everyone had to obey, in one way or another, to the will of the Germans. is simply useless to think that you could do differently: those who did not follow the will was sent to a German concentration camp.

Thinking that of Vichy France, or RSI, would be free to follow its own autonomous policy is, without doubt, very far from reality.

That is your own conjecture how things may or may not turn out to be.