Talk:Pierre Laval

Quotes

"I want to tell you that I think this war is a great mistake. If we had come to terms with Mussolini, as I wanted to do, we might have held Germany. That is no longer possible. We have given most of Europe to Hitler. Let us try to hold on to what we have got left. I am a peasant from the Auvergne. I want to keep my farm, and I want to keep France. Nothing else matters now."

"In the event of a victory over Germany by Soviet Russia and England, Bolshevism in Europe would inevitably follow. Under these circumstances I would prefer to see Germany win the war. I feel that an understanding could be reached (with Germany) which would result in a lasting peace with Europe and believe that a German victory is preferable to a British and Soviet victory."

- by Laval himself.

"The figure of Pierre Laval hung like an evil shadow over Vichy as the year opened. The former Prime Minister was a shrewd and able politician who staked his own future and that of France on an Axis victory. He was favoured by the German occupation authorities. A test of strength between Germany and the United States in Vichy was in the making as 1942 opened. It was to result in April in a temporary victory for Laval when the Germans forced the Marshal to take him back into the Government, which event necessitated my recall to Washington.

He was a small man, swarthy-complexioned, careless in his personal appearance, but with a pleasing manner of speech. In a very frank discussion of his policies, Laval gave the impression of being fanatically devoted to his country, with a conviction that the interests of France were bound irrevocably with those of Germany. One's impression necessarily was qualified by persistent reports that he had used his political offices to advance his private personal fortune. It was true that, starting with nothing, he had advanced from a poor delivery boy in a provincial town grocery to become a very rich man and a power in his country.

He convinced me that his Government was fully committed and might be expected to go as far as it could to collaborate with Germany and assist in the defeat of what he termed Soviet-British Bolshevism. Pierre Laval definitely was not on our side in this war."

- Admiral William Leahy, US ambassador to Vichy France.

An apology for Laval

Poor Pierre Laval, most definitely the 'man you love to hate.' Even Marshal Petain, head of the Vichy state, said of him Ce Laval-quel fumier! (What horse shit). In a poll carried out Novelle Litterairies in 1980 on the fairness of his post-war trial, only 2% of the respondents said that he should have been acquitted. Indeed, Laval has become the ultimate scapegoat, the French Judas. There are still those who would excuse Petain, believing he acted for noble if misguided motives. Nobody defends or excuses Laval, who is held to represent the 'unacceptable face' of Vichy. Even his appearance was against him; he seems the very quintessence of the shifty and disreputable politician. He was the ultimate wheeler-dealer, reflected even in his nickname, the 'horse trader.'

What defence can be made? Very little, I suppose, but I will try my best. First and foremost, he set out to preserve his country, not to betray it. He was never in that sense a Quisling, and senior French fascists were kept out of the Vichy administration. His task, as he saw it, was to continue the work of Aristide Briand in ending the emnity between France and Germany. But whereas Briand had Gustav Streseman, Laval had Hitler. He was also mindful of the fate of Poland under the Nazis, and saw active collaboration as a way of preventing a similar fate befalling France, thus ensuring that the country would have a role to play in the post-war settlement. He did not 'believe' in a German victory; but he did expect it. His chief aim was to conclude a treaty that would end the occupation, bring French prisoners of war home, and secure France's overseas empire. His chief failure was that he never really understood that the Germans were not at all intrested in maintaining a 'reasonable relationship', only in securing Frech support in advancing their war aims. Even his scheme to bring the prisoners of war home in return for sending French workers to Germany produced little in the way of practical returns, France giving far more than it received. He did his best to save the French Jews from deportation, but only at the sacrifice of those not of French nationality, which had the effect of turning his horse-trading into the grossest forms of moral turpitude.

He may indeed have been right, that things would have been worse without him, a defence that he made at his 'trial' in 1945. To the very end he preserved the semblance of an independent French state, and kept his long-standing promise that he would never consent to a declaration of war. The problem was that he simply lost all sight of the big picture, and that the collaboration which he believed would save France forced him into ever decreasing circle of compromise and betrayal. A more prudent politician would have said much and given little. Laval said much and gave even more. Clio the Muse 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. First of all, why try to defend Laval? He betrayed not only his country but the values on which France was founded. From the beginning, whereas some didn't surrender and kept on fighting from London, from Russia, from North Africa, Laval not only capitulated but eagerly embraced the enemy. He showed so much zeal in collaborating that the sometimes even embarrassed the Germans. You mention the "big picture", securing French interests, not necessarily wanting Germany to win but expecting it, wanting the return of French prisoners. What about the torture of resistants by the Milice? The soldiers killed by the LVF. The deported of the STO? If, as you say, senior French fascists were kept out of the Vichy administration, what was Philippe Henriot? He did his best to save the French Jews from deportation: when did he ever try to save even one Jew? What law did he refuse to apply? Did he ever defend the Jews in front of the Germans? I don't recall him protesting after the Rafle du Vel'd'Hiv. Laval was a dangerous combination of weakness, bitterness, meanness and ambition. For the sake of the memory of all who died killed by the LVF, tortured by the Milice or arrested and deported by the police, I don't believe one should write an "apology". An "explanation" perhaps, but Laval has too much blood on his hands for an "apology".--Scotchorama 08:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete post; if you disagree, add a comment, but attempting to censor won't work here.--Scotchorama (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To all posters on here, please remember Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion SGGH ^speak! 12:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and incited facts

The section "Under Vichy France" in particular, however much of the article, contains a number of statements which are very anti-Laval, and implicate him in a number of extreme and very pro-Nazi activities. While this is all fine with correct, verifiable references and citations, I question the reliability and neutrality of the section while these un-cited statements remain so. I have tagged the article thus, and hopefully with some references from historical sources (Lavals diaries, France the Dark Years 1940-1944 and Vichy France by Robert Paxton I am about to use to read on the topic) these statements can be cited and the problem resolved.

It goes without saying (though I am in danger of being accused of this) that I am neither a pro-Nazi sympathiser or a historical idiot, just a wikipedian, so plase realise that I have the interests of the article at heart. SGGH ^speak! 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

face it: he was an active nazi collaborationist