Petain in 1934- A Sinister France in the Thirties

De retour...

Petain arrived back at the relatively-new Orly airport on 24th March 1934 to a rapturous, if staged, reception. The situation had calmed down considerably in his absence, and on his orders, a new volunteer militia (the Milice) had been created alongside the regular police and gendarmerie.

Also in his absence, but not at his bidding, there had been significant harassment of President Lebrun. He and his wife had been receiving threatening phone calls, letters, and on one occasion an intruder had got into the Elysee without being stopped. It was clear that somebody was trying to intimidate Lebrun out of office.
 
Quebec

From Conrad Black's "Quebec in the Forties", 1987:

"Although Maurice Duplessis would lose in 1935, only to win in 1936, most people in Quebec were certain that a new era of conservatism was upon them. An ugly, corrupt brand of conservatism, with a particular deference to the Church.

It did not come to pass in the way most people expected. Although Duplessis' Union Nationale did dominate for many years, the landscape was changing dramatically. This was almost certainly due to the influx of French refugees from Petainism from March 1934 onwards. Protected by Canada's democracy, the next years saw some of the Francophone world's most famous, and soon to be most famous, figures appear on Quebecois shores. De Gaulle, Blum, Chautemps, dozens of writers, philosophers, politicians. They shaped the Quebec that emerged after 1940".
 
Assuming the Presidency

On 12th April, tired from harassment and well aware that he had made a huge mistake in appointing Petain, let alone granting him emergency powers, Albert Lebrun resigned as President. He and his wife flew to London that evening. His grown-up children, Jean and Marie, left with their families for Switzerland a day later.

According to the Acts of 1875, the effective constitution of the Third Republic, the resignation or death of a president forced an immediate meeting of the Assemblee Nationale and Senate. This convened the same evening. With the two far-left parties and their sympathisers amongst the independents gone, as well as a large number of SFIO and Radical members, the result was not in doubt. Despite a sizeable number of votes against, from both the remaining Left and Right, Marshal Henri Philippe Benoni Omer Joseph Petain was duly elected, according to due legal process, as the 16th President of the French Republic. Pierre Laval was duly appointed as President of the Council by Petain, as his replacement.

The reactionary takeover of France was complete. With almost perfect legality (or at least, in public), Petain and his allies were masters of the nation.
 
"The moral standing of the nation must be improved. The rejection of faith, and of the Church, has led to this degradation. And it must be resolved. The Ferry laws must be overturned". Thus was Petain's speech on Radio-Paris on 18th April 1934.

And overturn them he would. In a clear abuse of his powers, he used his emergency powers to overturn the Ferry laws, which enforced secularism.

Over in Britain, the powers that be were bemused. The ailing Prime Minister, Ramsay McDonald, was horrified at the swift ascent of this reactionary regime. But the Foreign Secretary, Sir John Simon, was less concerned. He saw no threat to Britain, and indeed was somewhat glad that a non-socialist, stable government had been imposed on France.
 
SteveW,

Please do keep this timeline perking along. I've found it fascinating and love spinning all the possible butterflies in my head.

For example, I can't wait to see what happens when (or if?) Hitler decides to reoccupy the Ruhr. The effects on the USSR should be quite interesting too.


Bill
 
Thanks for this timeline - there are not many France-centered ones on AH.com, especially as plausible as yours. But I have a remark concerning the general timing.

Isn't it a bit too compressed? We're but ~2 months after the 6th of February, but there is the Milice (appeared IOTL in 1943, that is, 2,5 years after Pétain has assumed full powers), Ferry Laws repealed (thing that Pétain has never done IOTL, even when he could easily have done that).

In my opinion, this doesn't sit too well with Pétain's character: cold, calculating, ever biding his time.

Moreover, the nature of Pétain's full power ITTL is too different from OTL one to pursue his agenda with such a speedy pace. In theory (until the last installment of your TL), he is still the PM of a parliamentary republic, responsable to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. His ascension to the post of President would have complicated the things: since Mac-Mahon, the President was much of a figurehead, the only possible exception being Poincaré. Such an abuse of power as the repeal of the laws of Ferry should have raised a general outcry and rally against Pétain even a good part of his supporters: you may shoot at the peaceful demonstrations, harass, intimidate and assassinate the leftist politicians, but to violate such an unwritten convention is way too much.
Let us not forget, that neither France is at war, nor is she under occupation (both of circumstances favor speedy development of events).

The decline of French democracy could have been slower and more sinister for the beholder.
 
SteveW,

Please do keep this timeline perking along. I've found it fascinating and love spinning all the possible butterflies in my head.

For example, I can't wait to see what happens when (or if?) Hitler decides to reoccupy the Ruhr. The effects on the USSR should be quite interesting too.


Bill

Thanks! The Germany situation will hopefully be very interesting indeed.
 
Thanks for this timeline - there are not many France-centered ones on AH.com, especially as plausible as yours. But I have a remark concerning the general timing.

Isn't it a bit too compressed? We're but ~2 months after the 6th of February, but there is the Milice (appeared IOTL in 1943, that is, 2,5 years after Pétain has assumed full powers), Ferry Laws repealed (thing that Pétain has never done IOTL, even when he could easily have done that).

In my opinion, this doesn't sit too well with Pétain's character: cold, calculating, ever biding his time.

Moreover, the nature of Pétain's full power ITTL is too different from OTL one to pursue his agenda with such a speedy pace. In theory (until the last installment of your TL), he is still the PM of a parliamentary republic, responsable to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. His ascension to the post of President would have complicated the things: since Mac-Mahon, the President was much of a figurehead, the only possible exception being Poincaré. Such an abuse of power as the repeal of the laws of Ferry should have raised a general outcry and rally against Pétain even a good part of his supporters: you may shoot at the peaceful demonstrations, harass, intimidate and assassinate the leftist politicians, but to violate such an unwritten convention is way too much.
Let us not forget, that neither France is at war, nor is she under occupation (both of circumstances favor speedy development of events).

The decline of French democracy could have been slower and more sinister for the beholder.

I appreciate your viewpoint, but the reason for the speed in this case is that, in my view, Petain's hand is strengthened here. He has calmed down the situation with the far right by his very presence, and has smashed the Left-both of which will win him a degree of loyalty. Much like 1940, he has put himself forward as some kind of saviour.

Also, he is now the pre-eminent reactionary politician in Europe (rather than overtly Fascist). He easily outweighs Salazar and Dollfuss. He is therefore trying to craft a non-German authoritarian system.

I'm going to carry on in this vein, but I do appreciate your thoughts on it.
 
Vienna, Paris, Dublin

On 1st May 1934, with the Socialist forces crushed after a period of civil war, Austria adopted a new constitution. The Bundesstaat Oesterreich, with Wilhelm Miklas as its puppet president and Engelbert Dolfuss as Chancellor, came into formal life: a reactionary Catholic state.

And a model for Petain. One of the visiting 'dignataries' was the reactionary historian and Action Francaise member Jacques Bainville.

A more bizarre occurance happened at Paris several days later, when Petain received a visitor of whom he knew little and wished afterwards that he had never heard of before. This gentleman was Eoin O'Duffy, leader of the new Irish Fine Gael party. Petain described O'Duffy to aides as "self-agrandising to a ridiculous degree. He must not be allowed to use me and France as props for his own bizarre campaigns". The suspicion was compounded when O'Duffy, on his return to Ireland, described himself as "The third most important man in Europe, after Petain and Mussolini".

O'Duffy's grandstanding had not been endorsed by Fine Gael, and their Fianna Fail opponents mercilessly attacked them. Within days of his return, O'Duffy had been forced out and replaced by the party's parliamentary leader, William Cosgrave.
 
Thanks for the answer. Of course, it's your timeline, and, as I've said, it is quite plausible.
As for Pétain as architect of a non-fascist authoritarian system, this is extremely interesting. I had similar ideas about four ideologies dividing the AH world in early '40s: liberal democracy, bolshevism, fascism and the fourth way, right-wing, xenophobic, but less expansionist and more traditionalist (ideologically and institutionally) than OTL fascism. If Pétain was a major independant leader, he would easily overshade Franco, Salazar and Dollfuss, and this "fourth way" could easily become associated with his name.
BTW, the growth of this *pétainism could have drastically changed the situation in the Central-East Europe. The right-wing and extreme-right clerical movements, such as Hlinka's Slovak People's Party, or even Codreanu's Iron Guard might be found looking to Paris instead of Berlin or Rome. Without saying that most authoritarian regimes in the region should have been feeling themselves more comfortable, in a way.
 
Starting with the 1934 riots one could have two different right-(wing Frances :

- the Action Française France, led by Pétain (most probably, but remember the man was over 80 in 1940 and served as a figurehead for more dangerous characters) and clearly the sinister, Fascist-like country one could imagine. With a serious caveat, though : popular dissent. One cannot set up a government in France and expect Frenchmen to fall into line, not in the 20th century that is. In this France, forget about any sembmlance of democracy (and forget about any semblance of real adhesion of the population to the rulers in place as well). This is, in short, fascist France.

- the Parti Social Français France (meaning the Croix de Feu France). Reading the political platform of the PSF for 1938 is, for a Frenchman, like getting one's hand on a time machine programmed for the future : more presidential powers, more political stabilitiy, voting rights for women, establishment of local governments, modernization of the civil servants who more or less ran France between governmental crisis in OTL 1930s. All of this came to be in the late 1950s, particularly after Charles de Gaulle became President of France. This is, for lack of a better denomination, Right-wing France.

The fascist France can only come into existence through a deep crisis : defeat and occupation, as in OTL 1940, or widespread riots as in this ATL 1934.

The Right-Wing France could have come into existence in OTL, if it hadn't been for WW2, through democratic process, and within the cadre of a democracy. It was France's first attempt at entering the "Mass Party" era from the right wing instead of the Left.
 
I'm also having pictures of a French-Italian Axis against Germany over Austria.

I could definitely see Mussolini cozying up to Petain instead of Hitler. Allying with France would be more to his benefit.
I'm glad you weighed in Faeelin, and especially over Ethiopia. My thought is that France (ironically, with Laval in prime position like IOTL, but with less weight of public opinion against the idea) might sacrifice Abyssinia to Mussolini. What do you think?
Remembre OTL Mussolini had informed Britain and France about his Ethiopia plans.
It was only after the Papers started talking about the terrible thing Italy was doing and How France and Britain had acquiesced in the invasion, That anybody cared.
IIRC it was a French Reporter for one of the opposition Papers that broke the Story, and the Story/Outrage was about the Acquiescence, not the Invasion.
The French and British governments were forced to condemn Italy's actions. This is what pushed Mussolini in Hitler's direction.

In this ATL with the French Media being a lot more - Government Friendly - I doubt if the Story will ever see Print.
 
A few points on France and Italy:

I notice on these boards a general assumption of France and Italy vs. Germany as a more "logical result". Someone said it was "more in Italy's interest", which as it turns out in hindsight is true, but that's really more of a hindsight kind of observation.

While a few Italians forsaw the serious mistake of the Italo-German Axis such as Balbo, there's a real reason most saw throwing their lot in with Germany more in their "best interest".

To understand Italo-German-French relations we have to understand Italy's main strategic concerns. They're a peninsula nation with nearly every point in the nation within an hour's drive to water. The population far exceeded the nation's agricultural, mineral and industrial capabilities, making it overwhelmingly a net-import nation, and one almost wholly dependent on sea trade.

This made them very vulnerable to naval threats. This made the Adriatic, Suez, Dardonelles, and Gibralter of extreme strategic/logistic importance. Corfu and the Dodecanese were not just force projection points, but vital points for control of the Adriatic sealanes. As Italian-Albanian ties grew stronger and Italian-Yugoslav relations grew worse, there was a real fear that a hostile naval nation operating from Dodecanese ports could devastate the Adriatic coast and sealanes. The growing Franco-Yugoslav partnership of the 20s made the fears of French ships on the Adriatic coast very imminent. Corsica offered an equivalent threat to the western shore. The shore-side cities were vulnerable to sea bombardment. Trade in general was vulnerable to any nation that controlled Gibralter, Suez, and the Dardonelles. Obviously this includes Britain, Greece and Turkey, but it also includes France who held control over Morroccan ports and was cosying up to Yugoslavia.

In the west, the old border and cultural issues over Savoia and Corsica were very much still real. Also worth note was that the industrial heartland of Italy was in the northwest and very vulnerable to invasion from or through France.

On the northern front there was the old emnity with Austria over Trieste and Trento, of course, and the old emnity with Germany, and fears of an Austro-German alliance were strong, including plans on dealing with Germanic invasion through neutral Switzerland.

However, the naval threat, Adriatic threat, and northwest threat were the foremost concern. Mussolini wanted the Dodecanese BAD. In the words of John Gooch (Mussolini and his Generals) Mussolini "despised" France. Even Germanophobe Balbo had his eyes cast on France as a likely adversary. Italian plans for war with Yugoslavia and War with France were the top priorities. Interestingly, plans for a two-front war vs. France AND Yugoslavia were not made based on the "we're screwed in that case, so why bother" theory.

At the Washington Naval Conference and similar naval treaties pairity with France was the foremost concern, and the inability to fund or produce a navy equitable to the growing French one was a constant danger.

Then there's French-held Tunisia, it's proximity to Italian sea lanes, and the ever-more-repressed (in Italy's view) ethnic Italian population there.

Simply put, in the inter-war period most in Italy saw France as the most likely major-power adversary in a war. They equipped, planned, and strategized for a land and sea war against France. They also planned for war possibilities against Germany and/or Austria, but France was the likely enemy in most scenarios.

The Locarno pact was signed by Italy, but generally feared for the implications of a Franco-German detente, and Mussolini and others secretly celebrated the death of Stresseman as a hope for a freezing of Franco-German relations. The Stresa Front was in direct response to Nazi aggression and while this is indicative of the real fears of a German-Austrian front against Italy, it should be remembered that this did not indicate a lessoning of Franco-Italian rivalries.

While an ATL Franco-Italian front against Germany is a real possibility in a realpolitik way, one should keep in mind it was not a "sure thing" and OTL's Italo-German front against France was just as if not more likely, considering the very real strategic rivalry between France and Italy.

Just some things to keep in mind in any alt-post-WWI Europe TL.

Sorry for the novel here, but I've recently become quite familiar with Italian strategic and diplomatic concerns thanks to my research for Viva Balbo. If you get a chance read Mussolini and his Generals by Gooch; it's a VERY dense but very informative look at Italian inter-war strategic/diplomatic/logistical issues.

Hope this gives some insights and isn't just an eyesore. :eek:
 
Wow, lots of reaction! (and I don't mean Petain!)

@Atlantic Friend and Kammada, who I think are making related points. I am thinking more of an Action Francaise-type France, and indeed one that other groups abroad will look at as a model. In fact, given time, I am looking at de la Rocque falling out with Petain and being forced into exile.

@DuQuense and Geekhis Khan: both of your points about Italian foreign policy are things I was unaware of, I will take those into consideration!

Many thanks for your continued readership everyone!
 
Wonderful. My only concern is that its a bit too slow.

I want to see a militarised France and Germany pwned at the Rhineland :D
 
Top