>hates political class
>hates officers for getting promotions not out of merit
>strongly believes in spirit of sacrifice for higher goals
>says he couldn't abandon french people in need of his help
>says that he couldn't let a german gauleiter rule his people, because that would have made them suffer even more
>most of the worst things out of his "leadership" were ill-written hate fueled documents he was forced to sign in the middle of the night while being an 80 years old
>clearly shows real repentance for what happened
>"my enemies accuse me of doing what couldn't be avoided instead of appreciating all the useless suffering I saved them from"
>didn't even have his marshal stick at the trials
Why is Pétain hated and considered a traitor?
1.I'm not french
2.This is not bait
>>806508
Because he came to power with the express purpose of signing an armistice. He argued that the war was lost in France and so they should give up before things got worse for them instead of fighting on. When the Free French retook the country, that wasn't exactly looked kindly upon.
also
>most of the worst things out of his "leadership" were ill-written hate fueled documents he was forced to sign in the middle of the night while being an 80 years old
He did that of his own free will. See the Riom Trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riom_Trial
>>806569
>. He argued that the war was lost in France and so they should give up before things got worse for them instead of fighting on.
Is he really blamed for this? Verdun claimed 1,25 million casualties in both french and german army and it lasted 10 month. In 1940 it was captured in 20 hours. Maginot like was dead. The british were drived away. Panzers storming everywhere. All france military and political leadership was still shocked with ww1, understanding that fighting on was useless was the only logical thing that happened in the whole second world war.
Riom trial was extremely bad and he sure made mistake. But wasn't he a sort of huge scapegoat?
>says he couldn't abandon french people in need of his help
Unless they're Jews 8|>-|-(^:p
>>806600
He thought France was better off with the Nazis and that the French people could not fight them. He's no scapegoat.
>>806622
>and that the French people could not fight them.
Ah, they could?
>>806628
They did, jerkoff.
>>806600
>Is he really blamed for this?
Considering what he had left to fight with, yes. He could have kept fighting in metropolitan France. He could have withdrawn what he could to Britain or Algeria to keep the fight on. The Marine National was still the second-largest Navy in Europe. The Armee d'Air was still largely intact and could have been salvaged. The fact of the matter is that he gave up when hope was not all lost. It was BAD, but France could have kept fighting with a government in exile like all the other European nations the Germans conquered.
>wasn't he sort of a huge scapegoat
No, for two reasons. One, he was the elected leader of the French government; just like the captain of a ship all responsibility rolls uphill and Lavall did a lot of bad shit in his and Vichy's name. And secondly, considering they didn't have him shot like a bunch of other collaborators (like Laval), he got off pretty lightly.
>>806508
he surrendered a superior force to the nazis, at a time when they could've beaten them because he hated jews, like most of the french high brass
>>806672
Because they know it could have been avoided. When he surrendered France (which he came to power to do, it wasn't like he was voted in and found that was his only option) he had a force that was still numerically superior to Germany's. It was not a sure thing that Germany would take ALL of France (considering how well they BTFO'd the Italians), and it sure as shit was impossible for Hitler to chase the French military across the English Channel or into Algeria. If he wanted to keep fighting, he could. He did not.
>>806709
>If he wanted to keep fighting, he could. He did not.
This explains everything and answers to my original post. Thank you.
>considering how well they BTFO'd the Italians
chasseurs dug in on the alps fighting infantry with ww1 era equipment =/= stopping panzer divisions whose armour you can't even penetrate
but I understand what you are saying.
I mean, my first thought reading Pétain's story was that the judgment was rushed with hindsight.
>>806672
the entire military brass hated jews, and had for a long time...
>>806508
He was basically the Dr. Breen of WW2
>>806569
>put previous government on trial in a show trial to blame them for losing the war
>communist Jew eviscerates your government and the legitimacy of your trial
>successfully manages to defend himself in a fucking fascist show trial
>makes such a mockery of Vichy so much that Hitler himself orders the trial stopped
#rekt
>"I was often opposed to him. However, he has been executed by a firing-squad and died singing the Marseillaise... Thus, I have nothing to add concerning the Communist Party of France."
BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
>>806663
They weren't a superior force. The UK, France and Belgium were all fighting on that front and were BTFO by German forces. At the point he surrendered France was alone against the Iron Tide of Germany. There was no way they would've "won", but Nazi victory would've been delayed if they fought on until the end.
>>806829
>>successfully manages to defend himself in a fucking fascist show trial
this is some Mussolini tier incompetence, jesus fuck
>>806916
Mussolini wasn't incompetent ree
A war of attrition could still have happened. Given the position of German forces as of the surrender, the likelihood would be that it would be fought with Paris behind the lines. In this scenario, you're looking at a lot more focus on strategic bombing by the Germans, and no Barbarossa until after France is pinned down completely; if you put even a fraction of the Barbarossa resources into strategic bombing, this would mean the Germans could hit back as hard as they were hit IRL. This would be a war where half a million to a million people would die in British and French cities (not forty thousand), and more than a million in German cities.
So the French people traded occupation for war, and it worked out okay for them. They knew Britain would not allow German hegemony on the continent, and we have to remember, they started fighting again as soon as was prudent.
>>806508
He was a moron.
He said something along the lines of "women and food are the only things worth living for". He was a huge degenerate.
He had junior officers write books for him in his name. Fun fact : he got into a squabble with a young officer, de Gaulle, because de Gaulle refused to not be mentioned as co-author for a book he wrote for Pétain.
Pétain was a faggot.
>>806865
they fought without air support, because the french kept their airplanes on the ground
>>807040
No, let's give credit where credit is due. They flew without air support because the French (and British) were getting slaughtered in the air. The Spitfire was up to snuff with the 109, as was the D.520, but the MS.406 and the Hawker Hurricane weren't. The Fairey Battle was a fucking death trap.
>>806569
>He argued that the war was lost in France
And that was the case
What would have you done, move the army to North Africa and continue the war there?
While letting your entire civilian population on the mainland as hostages at the hands of the enemy?
Once mainland France was lost, someone had to take responsabilities and surrender in order to dissociate the remaining forces that would keep fighting overseas from the country, and thus prevent acts of retalition by the occu^piers against the civilian population remained on the mainland
>>806641
>. He could have withdrawn what he could to Britain or Algeria to keep the fight on.
See >>807625 (You)
>>806641
>It was BAD, but France could have kept fighting with a government in exile like all the other European nations the Germans conquered.
Yeah, it sure worked out well for them
Compare the civilian death toll in Poland during the occupation to the one in France
If you look at it like a retard, it seems that Petain was a traitor coward and Polish politicians were brave heroes, but when you really think about it Petain faced the responsabilities of the defeat and stayed with his people in order to make sure they would be treated well by the occupiers, while Polish politicians ran away to London like bitches without giving two shit about what would happen to the Polish people back at home because of what they did.
>>807656
The Germans literally considered the Poles as subhuman. Of course they treated them worse despite the fact both Poland and France had active resistance organizations.
>>806609
>Unless they're Jews 8|>-|-(^:p
Most of the french jews survived.
Almost all of the jews deported by Vichy were foreigners, citizen of the reich or eastern europe, and dependent form an administration pov of the reich.
It was some kind of a deal. We give you the jews who are your citizens and are attached to your administration, and we keep ours. Forced deal, cause it was under military occupation.
Still, the french administration did the job, the jewish organisations participated too.
>>806989
>hey knew Britain would not allow German hegemony on the continent, and we have to remember, they started fighting again as soon as was prudent.
I mean they also sold out some of their ships in the Mediterranean and forced the British to scuttle them for control of the region, leading to a few hundred dead French sailors.
Also I believe that Carthage should be destroyed
