Vichy France

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE VICHY GOVERNMENT, JULY 10, 1940

On June 22, 1940, France signed an armistice with Germany. In the agreement, three-fifths of France would be occupied by the Germans, while the other two-fifths would be unoccupied. The government that ruled the two-fifths of unoccupied France was called the Vichy Government, and Marshal Petain was appointed Chief of State for Vichy France.

Although assigned the title of “Chief of State,” Henri Philippe Petain’s powers were more along the lines of a dictator. From military decisions to the appointment of government officials, Petain had complete control of entire Vichy France. According to Constitutional Act No.2, Article 1, Petain was in complete control of the government, and officials answered only to him. Petain was also given all legislative powers. Although these powers existed only until an assembly was established, Petain was also in charge of creating that assembly. Petain never established an assembly; however, he would have lost little control had it been created. According to Article 1 Section 2, Petain could retain his legislative powers “in case of tension in foreign affairs, or of a serious internal crisis on his own decision.” A world war would fit under the category of foreign affairs’ tensions, and Petain could easily pull a Hitler and declare an emergency situation to claim full control once again.

Marshal Petain was a French hero during World War I, yet during World War II Petain became Hitler’s French puppet. Constitutional Act No. 7 displays Petain’s Hitler-like decision to cleanse the country of all political dissidents. According to Article 1, all “state secretaries, high dignitaries and high officials of the state shall take oath before the Chief of State,” swear allegiance to Petain and obediently perform their requested duties. Should anyone prove unfaithful to Petain, he would receive punishment, anywhere from loss of political rights to detention in a fortress; however, the inquiry into one's unfaithfulness was conducted by Petain personally. With Petain in charge of the inquiry, no man would be guaranteed standard judiciary rights. Punishment for being unfaithful to Petain was not simply for the high government officials, but also for “former ministers, high dignitaries, and high officials who have exercised their duties within the past ten years.” All members of the pre-war French government were in danger, should they attempt to form a rebellion.

Petain attempted to appear distant from Hitler’s influence, yet in reality his government decisions were a lesser version of Nazi Germany. Along with passing anti-Semitic legislation, the Vichy government also took part in the arrest and deportation of French Jews. The French version of the German secret police was called the Milice, who were in charge arresting both Jews and resistance fighters. “Like the Gestapo, the Milice were willing to use torture to gain information.”

At the war’s end, the members of both Hitler’s and Petain’s governments were treated similarly. The leaders of the Vichy government were arrested for war crimes in 1945, some of whom were later executed. Henri-Philippe Petain was originally sentenced to death, but his sentence was later commuted to life in prison by Charles de Gaulle. Marshal Petain died in prison in 1951 at the age of 95.

Sources:

What Was Life Like in Vichy France During World War II?

Vichy France

Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain

London's Olympic Preparation

The opportunity to host the Olympics is an opportunity for a city to show itself off during a two week-span when all eyes are focused on it. I was under the assumption that anyone would be ecstatic if their city held the Olympics, so I was very surprised when our bus driver on that our first trip through London explained her lack of enthusiasm for the 2012 games. As she explained, large amounts of public money are being used to simply show off their city to the world. During the current economic meltdown, there may be better ways to spend the taxpayers’ money.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has promised the five following items:

1. Make the UK a world-leading sporting nation
2. Transform the heart of East london
3. Inspire a generation of young people to take part in local volunteering, cultural and physical activity
4. Make the Olympic Park a blueprint for sustainable living
5. Demonstrate the UK is a creative, inclusive and welcoming place to live in, visit and for business

When London first received the bid for the Olympic Games, the British government promised that the Olympics would pour money and jobs into the area, but will these and the promises above still occur?

The East End alone has been “promised 11,000 new and sustainable jobs.” 10 – 15% of the workers needed were promised to come from the five London boroughs hosting the events, with all five boroughs belonging to the poorest 15% of boroughs in the country. The problem is, however, putting this promise into effect. “The Olympic Delivery Authority says it has appointed contractors that are committed to leaving an employment and skills legacy in east London and to taking on and training local people.” There is nothing in the construction contracts, however, forcing the contracts to actually fulfill this promise and therefore no way to guarantee that contractors are not simply going to hire the cheapest labor found.Hackney MP Diane Abbott is one of many who have vocally expressed their concern that the Olympics may not have been a positive move for Britain. "Sadly, it seems to me that the reality does not match the talk. It does not match what people have been promised, the number of jobs that will be created or the billions of pounds of public money that have been invested in the Olympics…The current figures are dismal. Despite the billions of pounds being poured into the construction of the Olympic park, the numerous training programmes and the huge amount of labour that needs doing, the number of people from the East End who have received jobs there remains low."

As explained by Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell, the total cost for the Games and the regeneration of the East London area is £9.345 billion. This amount includes the building of the Olympic stadium and village, along with increased security and renovations to the public transport system. It had been rumored that Jowell had regrets over London hosting the games, telling leisure chiefs that “had we known what we know now about the economy we would almost certainly not have bid.” Jowell denied these rumors, explaining that she was instead referring to the idea that the general public opinion had turned negative because of the economic state.

London Mayor Boris Johnson defended Jowell’s comments, explaining to the BBC that if he had known of the current recession at the time of the 2005 bid, he would still have supported it. "There is never a bad time to stage a spectacular event like the Olympics and Paralympic Games, and, in the current economic climate, I believe London is extremely fortunate to be hosting the game. …The case for the games - if anything - is stronger in difficult times, and I believe that the development under way in the East End will prove a vital shot in the arm for the city when it needs it most."

Whether London does or does not have regrets over winning the Olympic bid does not matter really make a difference; come 2012, thousands of athletes and fans will pour into their city. Although the exact impact upon the individual residents of London will be hard to determine, the boost in tourism is sure to help the city in the midst of the poor economic climate.

Sources:

Will 2012 Deliver Promised Job Boost?

2012 Games will be Under Budget

Jowell Denies Olympic Win Regrets

Life Under a Dictator: The Reign of Francisco Franco

A few weeks ago, I visited a friend studying for a semester in Madrid, Spain. The first day, we went on a walking tour throughout the city, and our first stop was an old government building that is now a post office. Our tour guide explained that simply looking at this building can bring sadness to the people of Madrid, because during the reign of Francisco Franco, people who entered this building were often times never heard from again.

General Francisco Franco ruled Spain following the Spanish Civil War in 1939 until his death in November 1975. Ruling as a fascist dictator, Franco had complete control over the military, was both the chief of state and head of government, and had the final decision over every major political decision. Under Franco, strikes were regarded as treason, parliament was merely an “advisory body,” and owners and workers were expected to cooperate with the government to work “for the good of the nation.” Franco severely limited the rights of citizens, and although he did issue a bill of rights during his reign, he did so merely to keep in line with the democratic nations. “The government bestowed these rights on the people, and therefore could suspend them without justification; furthermore, the charter placed more emphasis on the duty of all Spaniards to serve their country and to obey its laws than on their basic rights as citizens. Thus, for example, the charter guaranteed all Spaniards the right to express their opinions freely, but they were not to attack the fundamental principles of the state.” To ensure his control over the people, political parties were banned, and supporters of the previous republic were imprisoned. As many as 200,000 Republicans were executed.

Following the death of Franco in 1975, celebrations took place throughout Spain. One girl recalls her grandmother’s reaction upon his death, in which she proclaimed, "I am so glad he suffered a long death!! With that he paid for a tiny bit of what he did!"

As I sat in one of the public plazas following the walking tour, I asked my friend more questions about Franco. She explained that this was not the best area to discuss the topic. Following the death of Franco, there was an unspoken vow of silence amongst the Spaniards; the memories of Franco’s reign was so terrible that it was better to act like it had never occurred. Is this idea of repressing bad memories and acting as if the events did not occur the best response? Take Hitler as an example of another infamous dictator. His actions are taught in history classes throughout the world, not merely to teach history but rather to prevent them from happening in the future. While in Berlin, I walked past the massive Holocaust Memorial. There was great controversy over the cost and size of the memorial, yet the architect insisted that it was necessary in order to reach the greatest number of people. The purpose of the memorial is not simple to remember those murdered by Adolf Hitler, but rather to help the world understand the impact of this terrible event, so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future.

Sources:
Country Studies
BBC Memories of Franco's Death
What Did Francisco Franco do as a Dictator?

The British and the War in Iraq

In the past wars of the 20th century, the British and United States have stood together. In the War in Iraq, however, the British were reluctant to follow the Americans. Although the greater portion of Britain opposed the war, Prime Minister Tony Blair made the unpopular decision to align himself with President Bush.

“Before we make the decision to go to war, the morality of that should weigh heavily on our conscience because innocent people, as well as the guilty, die in a war," explained former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in regards to whether Britain should back the United States in their War on Terrorism. Without the backing of the United Nations or the British public, Tony Blair sent troops to help the United States invade Iraq, describing his decision as a “moral” issue, saying that not acting would result in the death of thousands of Iraqis. Not only was Saddam seen as a threat to Iraq, but in the eyes of Blair, Saddam in power would be a ''life or death issue'' for the British and the world as a whole. Blair heavily relied upon evidence of nuclear weapons and warned of' “another Sept. 11 or worse” should Saddam not be removed from power. Blair received much criticism for his support of America, but never backed down, explaining that ''if it is the threat of the 21st century, Britain should be in there helping confront it, not because we are America's poodle but because dealing with it will make Britain safer''. Even when members of government called for his resignation, Blair said that he did not "seek unpopularity as a badge of honour… but sometimes it is the price of leadership and the cost of conviction”.

In June 2007, Blair’s ten-year reign as prime minister came to an end, being replaced by Gordon Brown. While Brown backed Blair’s decision to help the United States, British troops in Iraq have begun to return home in the past year. Brown explained that the British have accomplished their goal and it is time to give control back to the Iraqis. “We will discharge our obligation to the Iraqi people. The onus is of course on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi forces to prove that they can take responsibility for their own security,” Brown said. The British troops have been stationed in Southern Iraq, but the troops have slowly been removed, with Brown hoping to send the last ones home by the end of 2009.

Although the official position of the British government has been in support of the United States, the opinion of the British citizens has always been overwhelmingly against the War in Iraq. In a poll released in July 2008, it was revealed that 74% of the British want troops to return home immediately, while 66% never wanted England involved in the first place. In February 2003, at the height of the controversy, a large peace rally flooded London to protest England’s role in the Iraqi war. “Police said it was the UK's biggest ever demonstration with at least 750,000 taking part, although organizers put the figure closer to two million.” More protests ensued in November 2003, when President Bush paid a visit to his closest ally. The protestors’ main criticism for Bush came because of his motives for entering the war, which they saw to be related to oil, along with the overall lack of evidence for the weapons of mass destruction.

“I'm angry over all the lies and deceits that have been told by Blair and Bush over weapons of mass destruction,” 52 year-old protestor Sally Sanderson declared. “And I'm angry Bush came. I don't like our prime minister getting as close to Bush as he is.” Blair’s closeness with Bush has been repeatedly criticized by citizens and government officials alike, as many feel he is overly obedient to Washington and merely a puppet in Bush’s game.

Spiritual figures also joined forces to make their dislike of the Iraqi war known. In February 2003, the leader of the Church of England along with the head of the Catholic Church in England questioned Blair’s statement that the “war against Iraq was morally justified,” asserting that his decision “lacked moral legitimacy.”

The opinions of the British people echoed throughout the United Nations, who failed to support the Iraqi invasion. Their support was crucial to both Blair and the English citizens. For Blair, the support would restore the citizens’ confidence in his decision. For the people, even if they did not necessarily agree with the War on Terrorism, support from the United Nations would have provided justification for the invasion along with knowledge that their soldiers had not died in vain. In a 2003 poll wherein a majority of British opposed the war, 75% would be in support had the United Nation’s authorized it.

The top British and American officials have usually supported the other in times of conflict, yet the heads of government in both Britain and America are still new to the job so it will be fun to watch whether the two new guys become friends like Bush and Blair. If history is truly the best indicator of future events, then we can more than likely count on a Brown-Obama coalition, even if the citizens are not always 100% supportive.

Sources:
Blair Puts 'Moral' Case for War
Blair's Stand on Iraq Hurts Him Politically but Seems Unlikely to Topple Him
Blair Is Conciliatory, but Firm on War Stand
Million March Against Iraq War
Brown plans to withdraw troops as he backs Obama over 'war on terror'
Marchers In London Denounce Bush Visit

The British Monarchy

As Brian Thomas discussed the role of the monarch a few weeks ago in British Life and Culture, I questioned whether this reverence for the queen was the normal line of thinking for the average Brit or whether it was simply the opinion of an older gentlemen who is not a big fan of change. While more industrialized countries move towards a democratic state with an elected president, how do the Brits feel about having a monarchy? The Queen’s roles discussed by Thomas were quite vague to me, yet how is the British government able to get away with having a costly figurehead whose duties are not always clear to the public?

According to the monarchy’s official website, Queen Elizabeth plays a pivotal role in both England’s political and cultural life as head of state. In the political world, Elizabeth performs duties such as appointing judges, diplomats, and military figures. Additionally, Elizabeth opens the beginning of each new Parliament session, approves Orders and Proclamations, holds the right to declare war and peace, and heads the Church of England as the Supreme Governor. Elizabeth is also the primary focus of English culture. Elizabeth’s list of cultural duties includes meetings with foreign diplomats, oversea visits, and bestowing different honors, such as acknowledging charitable works. Elizabeth “officially recognizes excellence and success.”

Beginning in the seventeenth century, the powers of the monarchy have slowly been removed, as day to day powers were taken over by ministers and members of Parliament. The Queen’s dwindling powers has led some Britons to question the necessity of a Queen. Began in 1983, The Republic is an organization attempting to oust the Windsor family and are "campaigning for an elected head of state." With a mere 800 members in the organization itself, opinion polls reveal that 20% of the English support a move away from the monarchy and “an end to all hereditary positions of power." Those sharing the opinions of the Republic view the monarchy as an impediment for progress in England, “representing the feudal society of medieval England." For the Republic, instead of the head of state being chosen by birth, a more democratic means would be choosing based on ability.

As groups petition against the monarchy and other European nations move towards republics, a full 80% of the English are still in support of their Queen. For the British, the Queen serves as a source of English identity, reminding the British of their common ideals and patriotism. Embodying “the best of English society," the Queen is a symbol of unity in England. “In difficult situations, such as war, this symbolism provides a sense of duty for government and a sense of continuity." Unable to make political statements, the Queen helps separate the ceremonial and political duties of a country’s ruler. While the Queen performs the ceremonial duties, the prime minister is able to focus his attention on fulfilling duties as head of the government, instead of being forced to attend various parties and fundraisers like rulers from other countries. The monarchy also provides a sense of stability for England, as it remains constant throughout the years even as the government changes.

While controversy will always surround the monarchy, the Windsor family will not be ousted anytime soon. Although the royal family may not directly impact the political life of the country, their influence on the people is unprecedented. The monarchy is sure to undergo great changes in the coming years as a new head of state is on the horizon, yet their position as a signal of unity will remain.

Sources:
The British Monarchy: The Value and the Controversy
Monarchy in the UK
Official Website of the British Monarchy

Women in World War I

While prior to the war, women were given the sole responsibility to take care of the household, the role of women changed dramatically during World War I. With Britain in a state of total war, all members of society had their own job to do. With all able-bodied men shipped off to war, women “manned factories, invested in war bonds, harvested crops, and cared for troops on leave.” At the factories, women took on highly dangerous jobs in munitions. While multiple women died from the process, the skin of the other women turned yellow, providing them with the nickname of canaries. The jobs, however, were well paying and provided women with an opportunity for independence. Marriage was no longer mandatory for a woman as she could now financially survive without a husband. Jobs saved for women once included nurses, maids, or teachers. With the war, however, many recognized the great work the women accomplished in “men’s jobs,” and the opportunities for a woman broadened immensely. Along with higher wages, working conditions improved and women’s unions were formed.

Although women relished in their new-found freedom, “the pressures of employment,combined with the need to perform housework in straitened circumstances and the inadequacy of social services exacted a heavy toll.” Additional problems arose for the working women when the men returned from the war and unemployment soared, forcing many women out of a job.

Even though the women made great gains in equality following World War I, which included suffrage in many European countries, many European households fell back to their normal routine. True gender equality would not be reached for several decades.

Sources: Women and the Military during World War One
Women on the Home Front in World War One

American Politics in Britain

On my third night in London, I sat in a pub with my roommates, talking with a British man and an Australian woman about the recent American election. Instead of discussing the bare minimum on the candidates, we got into a deep discussion about the candidates’ policies, their running mates, and other American political figure heads. The amount of information they knew about America was astounding! I was extremely embarrassed to be sitting there, as I did not even know the head of Australia’s government.

This situation was just one of the many times that a Brit has quizzed me on American politics. On the day of Obama’s inauguration, I was questioned by a worker at Madame Tussauds on my opinions about the soon-to-be president. Walking down Oxford Street one day when I stopped to ask for directions, a foreign-born Brit lectured me on Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy.

This past week as I sat talking with two British guys at a pub, the subject came around once again to American politics. We chatted about the election for a good twenty minutes, but the part that struck me most about this conversation was when one of the guys explained the importance of this election to the British. He explained that America was in essence electing the guy who would rule the entire world, because America has such great influence.

According to political analyst Robin Sheppard, America's future is of great important to the British. "It is Britain's closest ally and looks like it will continue to be, so there is firstly that on the broadly emotional grounds, secondly America is the most powerful country in the world so anything that America does, at least in the next few years, will have a tremendous effect on Britain. So economically, as well as socially and politically we are linked," he said.

This great influence that America has on the everyday life for the British perplexed me at first. As an economics major, however, I was better able to understand this idea in terms of the global economy. Since the world has become more globalized, the economies of foreign nations have become dependent upon each other. With one of the largest and most dependable economies, the United States has the power to control prices, interest rates, trade barriers, and much more. Exchange rates are a prime example of how the American economy directly affects the average Brit. With the majority of the world in the middle of a recession, the United States is viewed as a safe haven. Although the United States’ economy is struggling along with everyone else, investors know that in the long-run, America has the greatest chance of enduring. One need only look at the recent trend in exchange rates to view this. While only a year ago, it took $2 to buy one British pound, the exchange rate has recently fluctuated to around $1.44 equaling one pound. British money has become less valuable, making it more expensive for the Brits to buy goods from abroad.

America’s influence on the life of a European stretches far beyond the political and economic spectrum, reaching into the area of food and entertainment. Fast food restaurants such as McDonalds and Burger King line the streets of European cities as much as in America. The movies at a London cinema are nearly identical to those in St. Louis, and the celebrities flocking the magazine covers in the two cities are also very similar. While countries attempt to cling closely to their individuality, it is hard to ignore the current convergence of cultures.

The US election: Is it Europe's concern?
This link offers readers to post their thoughts on the 2000 US Election a few days before it occured but provides great insight into the average European's view on whether American politics are important for those across the ocean.