France the Dark Years 1940-1944 [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

Like Jackson's two previous books on 1930s France, The Dark Years is based largely on secondary literature and memoir literature. Notwithstanding that Jackson's account is unusually thorough. He starts off with a discussion of the interwar years, which looks over such ingredients of Vichy as pacifism, the German threat, Action Francaise, the shock of the first world war and the Depression. He then discusses the Vichy regime, then goes on to discuss popular opinion about the occupation. There is then a large section on the Resistance, followed by one on the Liberation and the postwar Remembrance of the Occupation.

Ever since Paxton's book appeared people have commented on how the French have been unwilling to confront the shame of Vichy. Jackson's response to this is a breath of fresh air: "The problem with such comments is not only the unwarranted condescension which underlies them--the assumption that `we', the British, would have faced up to things much better in similar circumstances--but also the fact that they are so patently false....Far from being years which French historians avoid, the Vichy period is probably at present the most intensively researched in French history..."

Jackson also points out that the historiography of Vichy was not subsumed in euphemistic darkness before Paxton came along. More important is the emphasis on a fact that Paxton did not sufficiently emphasize. The Germans were never popular under the occupation. The Germans' own reports on public opinion were consistently pessimistic. As one German professor noted in June 1941 "The French rejoice at the fact that British planes are attacking their cities..." The National Revolution under Vichy has some support, and there were powerful quasi-fascist movements in France before the war began, but its popularity too was limited. Petain, by contrast, was popular, at the beginning, though often this was because many people incorrectly believed he was a double game against the Germans (he was not). The fact that Petain did not have a reputation as a Monarchist led many people to believe he was more liberal than he actually was. The remarkable crowds which greated him a few months before liberation were, as Jackson points out, less an endorsement of him than an opportunity to show French flags after their banning under the occupation. At the same time plans for a more modern and planned economy, greater emphasis on physical education and contempt for the defeated Third Republic would continue into the post-war years. (Similarly, Jackson is also good at how the invaluable contribution made to the Resistance by immigrants to France was ignored and downplayed in the following years.)

Jackson is good at pointing out the nuances of the occupation. He properly emphasizes the wide support many ordinary French men and women gave to persecuted Jews that was crucial to their high survival rate. He also refutes the Vichyist argument that their "interference" accounted for the lower rate of Frenchmen involuntarily drafted to labour in Germany. To the extent this was true, it was because of widespread resistance to the considerable efforts Vichy made to enforce German wishes. Jackson is also good on specific individuals. Henry de Montherlant's reaction to the occupation looks much less pleasant in retrospect. By contrast Lucien Febvre's continued publication of Annales looks more principled than has been given credit for, while Paul Claudel's praise of Petain should not lead one to ignore the fact that he was pro-British and against collaboration from the very beginning. Jackson is also good on the resistance. While the Allies would have liberated France without them, they made it considerable easier and they would have done more if the Allies had given them more arms. Although the Resistance's relations with the populace were strained, "the peasantry's attitude toward the Maquis was one of solidarity tempered by prudence, respect tempered by apprehension. Whether one stresses the prudence or the solidarity, there is no dobut that the Maquis could not have survived without the peasantry." If it is true that the number of resisters increased dramatically at the time immediately before liberation, this was also the time when they faced the greatest physical danger. Perhaps the greatest virtue of Jackson's book is that it shows why glib sneers about French "cowardice" are no longer acceptable.