What do you think?
Rate this book
France on Trial: The Case of Marshal Pétain
Few images more shocked the French population during the Occupation than the photograph of Marshal Philippe Pétain - the great French hero of the First World War - shaking the hand of Hitler on 20 October 1940. In the radio speech after this meeting, Pétain told the French people that he was 'entering down the road of collaboration'. He ended with the words: 'This is my policy. My ministers are responsible to me. It is I alone who will be judged by History.' Five years later, in July 1945, the hour of judgement - if not yet the judgement of History - arrived. Pétain was brought before a specially created High Court to answer for his conduct between the signing of the armistice with Germany in June 1940 and the Liberation of France in August 1944.
Julian Jackson uses Pétain's three-week trial as a lens through which to examine the central crisis of twentieth-century French history - the defeat of 1940, the signing of the armistice and Vichy's policy of collaboration - what the main prosecutor Mornet called 'four years to erase from our history'. As head of the Vichy regime in the Second, Pétain became one of France's most notorious public figures, and the lightening-rod for collective guilt and retribution immediately after the Second World War. In France on Trial Jackson blends politics and personal drama to explore how different national factions sought to try to claim the past, or establish their interpretation of it, as a way of claiming the present and future.
Julian Jackson uses Pétain's three-week trial as a lens through which to examine the central crisis of twentieth-century French history - the defeat of 1940, the signing of the armistice and Vichy's policy of collaboration - what the main prosecutor Mornet called 'four years to erase from our history'. As head of the Vichy regime in the Second, Pétain became one of France's most notorious public figures, and the lightening-rod for collective guilt and retribution immediately after the Second World War. In France on Trial Jackson blends politics and personal drama to explore how different national factions sought to try to claim the past, or establish their interpretation of it, as a way of claiming the present and future.
368 pages, Paperback
First published August 22, 2023
217 people are currently reading
2051 people want to read
About the author
Julian T. Jackson
21 books90 followersOne of the leading authorities on twentieth-century France, Julian Timothy Jackson is Professor of History at Queen Mary, University of London. He was educated at the University of Cambridge where he obtained his doctorate in 1982, having been supervised by Professor Christopher Andrew. After many years spent at the University of Wales, Swansea, he joined Queen Mary History Department in 2003. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and of the Royal Historical Society.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews
September 30, 2023
“Revisiting [Marshal Philippe] Pétain’s trial is not the same as re-opening it. It offers a fascinating opportunity to watch the French debating their history. Through the arguments in the courtroom we can explore choices that were made and paths that were taken; but also paths that were not taken and choices that were rejected. We can hear historical actors of both sides explaining their decisions, see how Vichy’s defenders justified their actions, and understand what the regime’s accusers considered to be its main crimes…”
- Julian Jackson, France on Trial: The Case of Marshal Pétain
The story of France in the Second World War is a curious one. Before the outbreak of hostilities, it was widely regarded as having one of the best militaries in the world. Once the shooting started, however, France crumbled before the German onslaught with such breathtaking speed that there’s a whole literary subgenre devoted to its study.
The numerous consequences of this collapse included the fall of France’s so-called “Third Republic,” and the installation of First World War hero Philippe Pétain as the head of the government of a rump state known as Vichy France, after the resort town that acted as its unofficial capital. After accepting this role, Pétain publicly announced a policy of collaboration with Nazi Germany, portentously noting: “I alone will be judged by History.”
Of that, Pétain proved only partly correct. Certainly, historians then and thereafter have struggled to square Pétain’s actions – resulting, among other things, in the deportation and death of thousands of Jewish people – with his underlying motivations.
But history was not Pétain’s only judge. As Julian Jackson relates in France on Trial, in July 1945 Pétain was called to account for his oft-inscrutable behavior as Vichy’s figurehead, with his reputation, freedom, and very life at stake.
***
My reading on the Second World War has been extensive, if not excessive. That said, I am nowhere near an expert on France’s role in general, or the Vichy regime in particular. When I picked up France on Trial, I assumed that the title contained some figurative elements, and that Jackson would provide the necessary contextualization.
In this, I was mistaken. France on Trial is about Pétain’s trial and its aftermath, and only about Pétain’s trial and its aftermath. The book starts with the last days of Vichy, and moves forward from there, without looking back. There is no dedicated discussion to Vichy’s organization, its operations, or Pétain’s actual leadership. To the extent these things exist – and some of them do exist – they are revealed piecemeal at Pétain’s trial.
Though I appreciate Jackson’s adherence to his own boundaries, the result is a lack of background for those who have not already spent a goodly amount of time on this particular topic.
***
Given what I’ve already said, it shouldn’t be surprising this started slowly from me. Thrust into the end days of a regime I only broadly understand, it took me a while to get my bearings.
Things do pick up rather quickly, though, especially as Pétain’s trial starts. Jackson does an exceptional job with the characters making up this drama. They are well-drawn and vividly portrayed, from Pétain’s aggressive defense attorney – and later torch-bearer – Jacques Isorni, to trial witness Pierre Laval, the fascist-friendly former Vichy premiere who seemed altogether pleased at the disintegration of the French Republic.
The trial itself is also narrated with consummate skill. Jackson leads you through the substance of the proceedings, while also providing sharp details about what it was like to be there, crammed into a sweltering ad-hoc courtroom at the height of summer.
Sticking to a chronological approach, Jackson discusses the highlights of the trial – including testimonial excerpts – while summarizing the rest. For the most part, he makes clear the intricacies of the inquisitorial system, as opposed to the adversarial system utilized in Great Britain and the United States. Still, there were times Jackson could’ve been clearer on the procedural rules. Throughout the course of the trial, for instance, many of the witnesses were in the courtroom – not sequestered as they’d be in America – and often felt free to add their opinions to the record when they felt impugned.
Despite Jackson’s solid handling of this section, he cannot overcome the reality of the event. That is to say, the trial itself is not nearly as dramatic as you might assume, given the circumstances. Indeed, the ultimate verdict was a foregone conclusion, given the composition of the jury, and even Pétain slept through parts of it.
***
One of the themes Jackson weaves throughout France on Trial is the question of what France wanted to learn from Pétain’s prosecution. As he notes, the tribunal’s locus fell upon the appropriateness of the Armistice, signed near Compiegne on June 22, 1940. The Armistice allowed for German occupation zones in northern and western France, with an unoccupied zone that would later be led by Pétain and Laval. Once the Second World War ended, this capitulation became a point of fierce contention, a reputational smear that proved impossible to erase.
Since Compiegne, France has been consistently ridiculed for its wartime performance. As Groundskeeper Willie asserts in The Simpsons, the French postwar identity can be boiled down to “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.” It thus makes sense that Pétain’s trial tried to deconstruct the Armistice to the last detail.
Nevertheless, for the rest of the world – and for posterity – there were much larger legal, ethical, and moral concerns about Vichy France. Specifically, Vichy’s assistance in carrying out the Holocaust. Jackson remarks several times about the absence of this component during Pétain’s trial. To his credit, he attempts to rectify this deficit with a couple separate chapters covering this ground.
***
France on Trial does not end with the Pétain verdict, but covers its lingering echoes, including Pétain’s fate, and the posthumous defense of his legacy. Eventually, Jackson segues into the present day, discussing how Pétain has become a rallying point in certain far-right circles.
While these sections can be intermittently intriguing, they go on far too long, and I think the space could have been used better. In particular, I tired of the tale of Jacques Isorni, and his lifelong quest to exonerate Pétain. France’s reckoning with its Nazi occupation – and its Nazi cooperation – is a fruitful area of inquiry, but tethering it to the increasingly-obnoxious Isorni is needlessly limiting, to the point of being myopic.
***
Of all the memorable personages Jackson introduces and sketches, the man at the center remains the most elusive. For whatever reason, Jackson does not make much of an effort to interpret Marshal Philippe Pétain, or to drill into the core of his being. This leaves a certain hollowness in France on Trial, and a nagging belief that Jackson would’ve been better served exploring Pétain himself, rather than his twenty-three-day show trial.
Was he a sly fox running a double game, hoping to hold France together until the United States and Great Britain could save it? Was he a closet fascist, disgusted with the Third Republic and glad for its disappearance? Or was he just a really old man, uncertain of what the hell he’d gotten himself into?
For all the words expended, arguments made, and briefs submitted, the trial of Pétain utterly failed to give any insight into the riddle of this man, who somehow managed to be France’s greatest hero and greatest villain, all in the span of roughly thirty years.
- Julian Jackson, France on Trial: The Case of Marshal Pétain
The story of France in the Second World War is a curious one. Before the outbreak of hostilities, it was widely regarded as having one of the best militaries in the world. Once the shooting started, however, France crumbled before the German onslaught with such breathtaking speed that there’s a whole literary subgenre devoted to its study.
The numerous consequences of this collapse included the fall of France’s so-called “Third Republic,” and the installation of First World War hero Philippe Pétain as the head of the government of a rump state known as Vichy France, after the resort town that acted as its unofficial capital. After accepting this role, Pétain publicly announced a policy of collaboration with Nazi Germany, portentously noting: “I alone will be judged by History.”
Of that, Pétain proved only partly correct. Certainly, historians then and thereafter have struggled to square Pétain’s actions – resulting, among other things, in the deportation and death of thousands of Jewish people – with his underlying motivations.
But history was not Pétain’s only judge. As Julian Jackson relates in France on Trial, in July 1945 Pétain was called to account for his oft-inscrutable behavior as Vichy’s figurehead, with his reputation, freedom, and very life at stake.
***
My reading on the Second World War has been extensive, if not excessive. That said, I am nowhere near an expert on France’s role in general, or the Vichy regime in particular. When I picked up France on Trial, I assumed that the title contained some figurative elements, and that Jackson would provide the necessary contextualization.
In this, I was mistaken. France on Trial is about Pétain’s trial and its aftermath, and only about Pétain’s trial and its aftermath. The book starts with the last days of Vichy, and moves forward from there, without looking back. There is no dedicated discussion to Vichy’s organization, its operations, or Pétain’s actual leadership. To the extent these things exist – and some of them do exist – they are revealed piecemeal at Pétain’s trial.
Though I appreciate Jackson’s adherence to his own boundaries, the result is a lack of background for those who have not already spent a goodly amount of time on this particular topic.
***
Given what I’ve already said, it shouldn’t be surprising this started slowly from me. Thrust into the end days of a regime I only broadly understand, it took me a while to get my bearings.
Things do pick up rather quickly, though, especially as Pétain’s trial starts. Jackson does an exceptional job with the characters making up this drama. They are well-drawn and vividly portrayed, from Pétain’s aggressive defense attorney – and later torch-bearer – Jacques Isorni, to trial witness Pierre Laval, the fascist-friendly former Vichy premiere who seemed altogether pleased at the disintegration of the French Republic.
The trial itself is also narrated with consummate skill. Jackson leads you through the substance of the proceedings, while also providing sharp details about what it was like to be there, crammed into a sweltering ad-hoc courtroom at the height of summer.
Sticking to a chronological approach, Jackson discusses the highlights of the trial – including testimonial excerpts – while summarizing the rest. For the most part, he makes clear the intricacies of the inquisitorial system, as opposed to the adversarial system utilized in Great Britain and the United States. Still, there were times Jackson could’ve been clearer on the procedural rules. Throughout the course of the trial, for instance, many of the witnesses were in the courtroom – not sequestered as they’d be in America – and often felt free to add their opinions to the record when they felt impugned.
Despite Jackson’s solid handling of this section, he cannot overcome the reality of the event. That is to say, the trial itself is not nearly as dramatic as you might assume, given the circumstances. Indeed, the ultimate verdict was a foregone conclusion, given the composition of the jury, and even Pétain slept through parts of it.
***
One of the themes Jackson weaves throughout France on Trial is the question of what France wanted to learn from Pétain’s prosecution. As he notes, the tribunal’s locus fell upon the appropriateness of the Armistice, signed near Compiegne on June 22, 1940. The Armistice allowed for German occupation zones in northern and western France, with an unoccupied zone that would later be led by Pétain and Laval. Once the Second World War ended, this capitulation became a point of fierce contention, a reputational smear that proved impossible to erase.
Since Compiegne, France has been consistently ridiculed for its wartime performance. As Groundskeeper Willie asserts in The Simpsons, the French postwar identity can be boiled down to “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.” It thus makes sense that Pétain’s trial tried to deconstruct the Armistice to the last detail.
Nevertheless, for the rest of the world – and for posterity – there were much larger legal, ethical, and moral concerns about Vichy France. Specifically, Vichy’s assistance in carrying out the Holocaust. Jackson remarks several times about the absence of this component during Pétain’s trial. To his credit, he attempts to rectify this deficit with a couple separate chapters covering this ground.
***
France on Trial does not end with the Pétain verdict, but covers its lingering echoes, including Pétain’s fate, and the posthumous defense of his legacy. Eventually, Jackson segues into the present day, discussing how Pétain has become a rallying point in certain far-right circles.
While these sections can be intermittently intriguing, they go on far too long, and I think the space could have been used better. In particular, I tired of the tale of Jacques Isorni, and his lifelong quest to exonerate Pétain. France’s reckoning with its Nazi occupation – and its Nazi cooperation – is a fruitful area of inquiry, but tethering it to the increasingly-obnoxious Isorni is needlessly limiting, to the point of being myopic.
***
Of all the memorable personages Jackson introduces and sketches, the man at the center remains the most elusive. For whatever reason, Jackson does not make much of an effort to interpret Marshal Philippe Pétain, or to drill into the core of his being. This leaves a certain hollowness in France on Trial, and a nagging belief that Jackson would’ve been better served exploring Pétain himself, rather than his twenty-three-day show trial.
Was he a sly fox running a double game, hoping to hold France together until the United States and Great Britain could save it? Was he a closet fascist, disgusted with the Third Republic and glad for its disappearance? Or was he just a really old man, uncertain of what the hell he’d gotten himself into?
For all the words expended, arguments made, and briefs submitted, the trial of Pétain utterly failed to give any insight into the riddle of this man, who somehow managed to be France’s greatest hero and greatest villain, all in the span of roughly thirty years.
June 25, 2024
People are laughing and shouting, but there is no real enthusiasm … People are happy, but not that happy. The war is over but everyone feels that the difficulties are going to go on … A real fête is one in which one participates as an actor, and in reality this crowd is only made up of spectators. Something is missing.
-Maurice Garçon
My thoughts are all over the place and my kids are in my hair as I type, so excuse my slapdash review for this more than deserving book.
As the title suggests, this well researched, meticulously structured, detailed but not mind-numbing, and most importantly, unbiased and balanced book recounts Marshal Philippe Pétain’s trial which began in Paris on 23 July and ended on 15 August 1945.
This is my policy. My ministers are responsible to me. It is I alone who will be judged by History.
-Marshal Pétain
The trial was to answer the following questions:
Was the armistice the right choice? Did it save lives or was it simply an infliction of dishonor on France?
Was there an alternative to it?
Had Pétain been knowingly deceitful or was he simply persuaded? Had others acted behind his back?
Had he abused the powers he had been granted?
I was 20 years old in June 1940 when I was made a prisoner... In interminable columns we marched along France’s roads under a torrid sun, exhausted, dirty, hungry, watched by guards who knew that our civilian protectors had deserted us and that nothing now protected us … No news. Villages in flames. Everywhere endless columns of unfortunate refugees, unforgettable images of sadness and abandonment.
Then one night, all changed; our guardians changed their tone and told us that a glorious French Leader was seeking an armistice …
From the bottom of our hearts, exhausted by our suffering rose a ray of light, and we said a prayer for this great Soldier who, in the gravest crises, crowned by his Glory, had been there to protect us.
Eight months later I managed to escape and I will always be grateful to the Marshal for having preserved a tiny corner of France where I could take refuge with my family.
-A former veteran of 1940
Was Pétain a traitor or a puppet and a scapegoat?
Was he a free agent or Hitler’s prisoner?
What is rumor and propaganda and what is true?
But the book is more than just a trial and its examination. There are judges, jurors, lawyers, prosecutors, journalists, witnesses, collaborators and victims to revisit.
Who is telling the truth? Who is lying?
The book begins from the last days of Vichy, takes us to the days during the Liberation and the arrests and releases and blamings.
This victory had been won a very long way from us; we had not waited for it, like the Liberation, in a kind of feverish anxiety; we knew it was coming for a long time, and it did not open up new hopes; it simply put a final full stop to the war; in some sense it was like a death; as when a man dies, when times stops for him … The war was over: it remained in our arms like a huge awkward corpse; and there was no place in the world to bury it.
-Simone de Beauvoir
But however we see things now and try to explain them, we won’t ever know the whole truth. One should put oneself in those hellish days of turmoil and misrule to be able to judge, chastise or punish.
What really went on behind the closed doors? What would have happened if the Marshal didn’t agree to the Armistice; if he simply left France for North Africa; if Reynaud hadn’t resigned; if…if…if…
And as François Mauriac said, ‘For everyone, whatever happens, for his admirers, for his adversaries, Pétain will remain a tragic figure, caught between treason and sacrifice … A trial like this one is never over and will never end.’
An excerpt, describing the courtroom from Joseph Kessel’s perspective:
In the corridor leading up to the judges’ bench stands an old worn leather armchair. In front of it a little table. That is where the defendant, Marshal Pétain, will take his place.
While we wait, the assembled journalists chat with each other; photographers and film operators prepare their cameras.
Then the characters in the drama file in to take their places: a nun who is there to watch over Pétain’s health, politicians of the defunct Third Republic, who sit next to each other like a row of schoolboys.
Suddenly the court falls silent. By a little door at the side, between the packed benches, the accused is led in by two guards. He is in uniform. The only decoration he is wearing is the Médaille Militaire. He walks erectly, looking at no one. He goes to the old armchair, puts his képi with its laurel decoration on the little table, and sits down.
The silence goes on. But the atmosphere of tense expectation is palpable. What is the nature of this emotion? Pity? Indignation? Sympathy? Hatred? No, I think it is none of these things. It is a sense of unease, a malaise, a sort of abstract pain which is not directed to the old man who has just sat down. It goes beyond his person; it is about the glory, the destiny, of the patrie; it is about those great symbols of which that old man, sitting in that old armchair, bore the weight on his shoulders. But the man himself does not seem to excite any real emotion – because he does not seem to be experiencing any real emotion himself.
The silence, of which he is the source and the still centre, drags on. Surely he must find it unbearable. But he seems not to notice. His hands play with a large scroll of rolled-up paper. They seem to be independent of him; with a life of their own. They never stop moving. But Marshal Pétain seems not to be aware, nor to be aware of this, or of his tired eyes continuously blinking. He is immobile, impassive, impenetrable.
-Maurice Garçon
My thoughts are all over the place and my kids are in my hair as I type, so excuse my slapdash review for this more than deserving book.
As the title suggests, this well researched, meticulously structured, detailed but not mind-numbing, and most importantly, unbiased and balanced book recounts Marshal Philippe Pétain’s trial which began in Paris on 23 July and ended on 15 August 1945.
This is my policy. My ministers are responsible to me. It is I alone who will be judged by History.
-Marshal Pétain
The trial was to answer the following questions:
Was the armistice the right choice? Did it save lives or was it simply an infliction of dishonor on France?
Was there an alternative to it?
Had Pétain been knowingly deceitful or was he simply persuaded? Had others acted behind his back?
Had he abused the powers he had been granted?
I was 20 years old in June 1940 when I was made a prisoner... In interminable columns we marched along France’s roads under a torrid sun, exhausted, dirty, hungry, watched by guards who knew that our civilian protectors had deserted us and that nothing now protected us … No news. Villages in flames. Everywhere endless columns of unfortunate refugees, unforgettable images of sadness and abandonment.
Then one night, all changed; our guardians changed their tone and told us that a glorious French Leader was seeking an armistice …
From the bottom of our hearts, exhausted by our suffering rose a ray of light, and we said a prayer for this great Soldier who, in the gravest crises, crowned by his Glory, had been there to protect us.
Eight months later I managed to escape and I will always be grateful to the Marshal for having preserved a tiny corner of France where I could take refuge with my family.
-A former veteran of 1940
Was Pétain a traitor or a puppet and a scapegoat?
Was he a free agent or Hitler’s prisoner?
What is rumor and propaganda and what is true?
But the book is more than just a trial and its examination. There are judges, jurors, lawyers, prosecutors, journalists, witnesses, collaborators and victims to revisit.
Who is telling the truth? Who is lying?
The book begins from the last days of Vichy, takes us to the days during the Liberation and the arrests and releases and blamings.
This victory had been won a very long way from us; we had not waited for it, like the Liberation, in a kind of feverish anxiety; we knew it was coming for a long time, and it did not open up new hopes; it simply put a final full stop to the war; in some sense it was like a death; as when a man dies, when times stops for him … The war was over: it remained in our arms like a huge awkward corpse; and there was no place in the world to bury it.
-Simone de Beauvoir
But however we see things now and try to explain them, we won’t ever know the whole truth. One should put oneself in those hellish days of turmoil and misrule to be able to judge, chastise or punish.
What really went on behind the closed doors? What would have happened if the Marshal didn’t agree to the Armistice; if he simply left France for North Africa; if Reynaud hadn’t resigned; if…if…if…
And as François Mauriac said, ‘For everyone, whatever happens, for his admirers, for his adversaries, Pétain will remain a tragic figure, caught between treason and sacrifice … A trial like this one is never over and will never end.’
An excerpt, describing the courtroom from Joseph Kessel’s perspective:
In the corridor leading up to the judges’ bench stands an old worn leather armchair. In front of it a little table. That is where the defendant, Marshal Pétain, will take his place.
While we wait, the assembled journalists chat with each other; photographers and film operators prepare their cameras.
Then the characters in the drama file in to take their places: a nun who is there to watch over Pétain’s health, politicians of the defunct Third Republic, who sit next to each other like a row of schoolboys.
Suddenly the court falls silent. By a little door at the side, between the packed benches, the accused is led in by two guards. He is in uniform. The only decoration he is wearing is the Médaille Militaire. He walks erectly, looking at no one. He goes to the old armchair, puts his képi with its laurel decoration on the little table, and sits down.
The silence goes on. But the atmosphere of tense expectation is palpable. What is the nature of this emotion? Pity? Indignation? Sympathy? Hatred? No, I think it is none of these things. It is a sense of unease, a malaise, a sort of abstract pain which is not directed to the old man who has just sat down. It goes beyond his person; it is about the glory, the destiny, of the patrie; it is about those great symbols of which that old man, sitting in that old armchair, bore the weight on his shoulders. But the man himself does not seem to excite any real emotion – because he does not seem to be experiencing any real emotion himself.
The silence, of which he is the source and the still centre, drags on. Surely he must find it unbearable. But he seems not to notice. His hands play with a large scroll of rolled-up paper. They seem to be independent of him; with a life of their own. They never stop moving. But Marshal Pétain seems not to be aware, nor to be aware of this, or of his tired eyes continuously blinking. He is immobile, impassive, impenetrable.
October 12, 2024
"It was the French people in France who, through their representatives, meeting as a National Assembly on 10th July 1940 conferred power on me. It is to the people alone that I have returned to explain myself".
Thus Pétain read these opening sentences of his declaration at his trial at the Palais de Justice in Paris on 23rd July 1945. It was billed as the trial of the century and one that would hold France in its grip that first summer following liberation.
Julian Jackson is known as a accomplished historian of modern France, and this very good book joins his other titles notably about the life of Charles de Gaulle; The German Occupation of 1940-44; and the fall of France in 1940.
The book is split into three parts: 1. Before the Trial; 2. In the Courtroom; 3. and Afterlives.
1. The reader is taken to the events that led to the formation of the Vichy government and Pétain's return to public life as its leader and how events and decisions shaped the administration and collaboration with the Germans until war's end. This section also includes the final days of the Vichy administration in Germany and Pétain's eventual return to France. Trial preparation and the initial interviews and questioning of Pétain are also covered.
2. The largest part. Firstly, delves into the court and its location, key officials and judges plus structure of the court room and how people are located and where sat. Secondly, and in what was a riveting account we see the discussions and debate on the Franco-German armistice of 1940 and how Vichy became the seat of a collaborationist government. Key questions, amongst others, where:
Why did Pétain and others stay?
Why did they not flee to North Africa?
Why did Pétain shake Hitler's hand?
Were French Jews protected over other Jews?
Was Pétain secretly playing a double-game to assist the allies?
Why did the Milice (Vichy's political paramilitary organization to) fight the French resistance and support the Vichy police in operations to deport Jews and other "undesirables" under Pétain's authority?
The testimonies of witnesses of leading figures for the Prosecution and Defence such as Laval, Weygand, Reynaud, Heriot, Daladier, Blum, and many others is well-described as the two camps cross-examine witnesses and challenge their version of events is fascinating. Notably, the deference shown to Pétain, whilst at times suggesting he was to blame or perhaps he was confused.
The verdict is the final chapter in this part and, again, is detailed and well-explained for both proceedings, decisions and the reaction of jurors, press, and, of course, the defendant, Pétain.
Part 3, describes Pétain as prisoner and his life in captivity. There are various appeals and continued explanations of why, what, how and who to try and garner support for the aged marshal. The final chapters covers the period after Petain's death and includes "keeping his memory alive" and equally those trying to forget his place in French public life and history, and how Pétain is judged today and is used by various politicians and parties.
The book also has a very handy Dramatis Personae that fully lists the Judge, Prosecution team, the Jurors, the Defence team, Prosecution and defence witnesses, other witnesses called to testify by the Judge. Aside from names, the detail provided is role (notably in WWII), and their dates of birth and death.
Recommended for those interested in WWII, post-war France including legal cases, and Vichy/France 1940-44. There is little need for an in-depth knowledge of WWII, Vichy or Pétain as this is all well explained and put into context.
Thus Pétain read these opening sentences of his declaration at his trial at the Palais de Justice in Paris on 23rd July 1945. It was billed as the trial of the century and one that would hold France in its grip that first summer following liberation.
Julian Jackson is known as a accomplished historian of modern France, and this very good book joins his other titles notably about the life of Charles de Gaulle; The German Occupation of 1940-44; and the fall of France in 1940.
The book is split into three parts: 1. Before the Trial; 2. In the Courtroom; 3. and Afterlives.
1. The reader is taken to the events that led to the formation of the Vichy government and Pétain's return to public life as its leader and how events and decisions shaped the administration and collaboration with the Germans until war's end. This section also includes the final days of the Vichy administration in Germany and Pétain's eventual return to France. Trial preparation and the initial interviews and questioning of Pétain are also covered.
2. The largest part. Firstly, delves into the court and its location, key officials and judges plus structure of the court room and how people are located and where sat. Secondly, and in what was a riveting account we see the discussions and debate on the Franco-German armistice of 1940 and how Vichy became the seat of a collaborationist government. Key questions, amongst others, where:
Why did Pétain and others stay?
Why did they not flee to North Africa?
Why did Pétain shake Hitler's hand?
Were French Jews protected over other Jews?
Was Pétain secretly playing a double-game to assist the allies?
Why did the Milice (Vichy's political paramilitary organization to) fight the French resistance and support the Vichy police in operations to deport Jews and other "undesirables" under Pétain's authority?
The testimonies of witnesses of leading figures for the Prosecution and Defence such as Laval, Weygand, Reynaud, Heriot, Daladier, Blum, and many others is well-described as the two camps cross-examine witnesses and challenge their version of events is fascinating. Notably, the deference shown to Pétain, whilst at times suggesting he was to blame or perhaps he was confused.
The verdict is the final chapter in this part and, again, is detailed and well-explained for both proceedings, decisions and the reaction of jurors, press, and, of course, the defendant, Pétain.
Part 3, describes Pétain as prisoner and his life in captivity. There are various appeals and continued explanations of why, what, how and who to try and garner support for the aged marshal. The final chapters covers the period after Petain's death and includes "keeping his memory alive" and equally those trying to forget his place in French public life and history, and how Pétain is judged today and is used by various politicians and parties.
The book also has a very handy Dramatis Personae that fully lists the Judge, Prosecution team, the Jurors, the Defence team, Prosecution and defence witnesses, other witnesses called to testify by the Judge. Aside from names, the detail provided is role (notably in WWII), and their dates of birth and death.
Recommended for those interested in WWII, post-war France including legal cases, and Vichy/France 1940-44. There is little need for an in-depth knowledge of WWII, Vichy or Pétain as this is all well explained and put into context.
April 4, 2025
1917 The hero of Verdun, a Marshal of France, adored by the people of France
1940 The head of the Vichy Government of France
1945 On trial as a traitor to France
This was Phillipe Petain, a man had won almost every conceivable honor that France could bestow and how he became the center of one of the most controversial trials in French history. The questions arise if this was (1) a senile man (he was 89 at the time of the trial) who was being manipulated, (2) an honorable Frenchman who wanted to save his country, or (3) a collaborator and traitor.
This book begins with a short background of Petain's life but concentrates on the trial and those who participated. It should be understood that the French legal system was (or is) much different from that of the UK and US and the author explains the processes and procedures which is necessary to follow the flow of the trial. We learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution and defense but very little about Petain's reactions. This makes sense as he did not testify and spoke very little during the trial. The public reaction was mixed, as expected.
This is a beautifully written, fact based history of a very troubled time in France at the end of WWII. If you are unfamiliar with the court's decision and Petain's fate, this review will not contain spoilers. If, however, you are familiar with the outcome, you might be surprised at some of the additional information which throws some new light on the trial.
I highly recommend this book.
1940 The head of the Vichy Government of France
1945 On trial as a traitor to France
This was Phillipe Petain, a man had won almost every conceivable honor that France could bestow and how he became the center of one of the most controversial trials in French history. The questions arise if this was (1) a senile man (he was 89 at the time of the trial) who was being manipulated, (2) an honorable Frenchman who wanted to save his country, or (3) a collaborator and traitor.
This book begins with a short background of Petain's life but concentrates on the trial and those who participated. It should be understood that the French legal system was (or is) much different from that of the UK and US and the author explains the processes and procedures which is necessary to follow the flow of the trial. We learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution and defense but very little about Petain's reactions. This makes sense as he did not testify and spoke very little during the trial. The public reaction was mixed, as expected.
This is a beautifully written, fact based history of a very troubled time in France at the end of WWII. If you are unfamiliar with the court's decision and Petain's fate, this review will not contain spoilers. If, however, you are familiar with the outcome, you might be surprised at some of the additional information which throws some new light on the trial.
I highly recommend this book.
December 3, 2024
This was an unexpected yet obvious follow-up to Judgment at Tokyo which I read just two months ago. Seems this is my year to learn there were more judicial post-mortems to WWII than Nuremburg. To that end, this book served its purpose. That's only meant as faint praise comparatively.
The Tokyo trials had more defendants. And there were more judges and more prosecutors, an admixture from eleven different countries. This created a smorgasbord of tensions. And there would not be unanimity.
In recently liberated Paris, other countries were not invited. It was a time for the French to judge the French. What to do with Vichy?
Various defendants were tried individually, some very quickly, with quick capital sentences too. But the cause célèbre, and indeed the focus of this book, was what to do with Marshal Philippe Pétain.
Pétain had been France's resident hero every since his maneuvers at Verdun in the First World War. And now, when the Nazis were steamrolling through France he accepted power . . . and agreed to an Armistice at Montoire-sur-le-Loir. Which was, unfortunately for Pétain, captured in a photograph:
Probably something Pétain should have deleted from his Facebook page. Just sayin'.
Anyhow, the trial became a question of whether Pétain's playing footsie with Hitler saved France from further ignominy, or was it Treason? I won't spoil the ending. There was, though, this very apt perception by the author:
If, as Talleyrand remarked, treason is a matter of dates, Juin had put himself on the right side of history - by a few hours. For Pétain's defenders this raised another problem: why had Pétain remained on the wrong side of history for another two years?
After the trial, a book by a Pétain apologist was published, suggesting that Pétain brilliantly outplayed Hitler at Montoire. Pétain had this chat about it with one of his lawyers:
ISORNI: Monsieur le Maréchal, part of the book is controversial. In going to Montoire, did you really intend to turn the Germans against Russia?
PÉTAIN: I am not sure today if I did have ideas of this kind. But are they favourable to me?
ISORNI: Obviously.
PÉTAIN: In that case no need to deny them.
The Tokyo trials had more defendants. And there were more judges and more prosecutors, an admixture from eleven different countries. This created a smorgasbord of tensions. And there would not be unanimity.
In recently liberated Paris, other countries were not invited. It was a time for the French to judge the French. What to do with Vichy?
Various defendants were tried individually, some very quickly, with quick capital sentences too. But the cause célèbre, and indeed the focus of this book, was what to do with Marshal Philippe Pétain.
Pétain had been France's resident hero every since his maneuvers at Verdun in the First World War. And now, when the Nazis were steamrolling through France he accepted power . . . and agreed to an Armistice at Montoire-sur-le-Loir. Which was, unfortunately for Pétain, captured in a photograph:
Probably something Pétain should have deleted from his Facebook page. Just sayin'.
Anyhow, the trial became a question of whether Pétain's playing footsie with Hitler saved France from further ignominy, or was it Treason? I won't spoil the ending. There was, though, this very apt perception by the author:
If, as Talleyrand remarked, treason is a matter of dates, Juin had put himself on the right side of history - by a few hours. For Pétain's defenders this raised another problem: why had Pétain remained on the wrong side of history for another two years?
After the trial, a book by a Pétain apologist was published, suggesting that Pétain brilliantly outplayed Hitler at Montoire. Pétain had this chat about it with one of his lawyers:
ISORNI: Monsieur le Maréchal, part of the book is controversial. In going to Montoire, did you really intend to turn the Germans against Russia?
PÉTAIN: I am not sure today if I did have ideas of this kind. But are they favourable to me?
ISORNI: Obviously.
PÉTAIN: In that case no need to deny them.
July 13, 2023
For an academic book I found this remarkably easy to read. Jackson has a mischievous eye for the outre. There's a strong narrative and lots of insightful analysis. The court case isn't the most riveting I've read. But has its fair share of dramatic moments and exotic characters. The fact that it's the far right who still revere Petain tells you all you need to know. By 1940 many of the horrors of the Third Reich were already common knowledge. If you'd care to find out. Or if you cared full stop. Maybe Petain genuinely believed he was doing his best for France. But the France he believed in and represented wasn't necessarily the real France. Granted, French antisemitism was exclusionary rather than exterminatory. But then so was Germany's. To begin with. Petain comes across as one of those public figures who liked the limelight. He probably thought by 1939 that his time was long over. Then came the opportunity to be at the centre of things again. And he took it. He made a pact with the devil. And afterwards he paid the price. Losing everything. His reputation. His freedom. Even his soul. A sad end. There have been various attempts to rehabilitate him - Jackson's story goes right up to the present day - but when you look at who the rehabilitators are, the old saying of 'With friends like this...' comes to mind.
August 18, 2024
A fabulously interesting look at Petain, Vichy, and France's post WWII attempts to come to grips with what happened between 1940-1944 viewed through the post war trial of Petain for treason. Be clear this is about the trial and it covers it in detail which I found fascinating, but other reviewers did not because as the best review posted (Matt on September 30, 2023) admitted they had no realised the specificity of the book's subject. This very specificity actually illuminates so many of the lies, evasions and myths held, believed, propagated with a passion blind to any ability to stand back and look at events outside of personal, passionate, emotional and ideological commitments(please see my footnote *1 below).
Examining Petain's trial is a fascinating window on what was important to the French officials (the newly installed resistance government) and most French people at the time. De Gaulle considered the signing of the armistice the actual treason; the prosecutors that there was a 'conspiracy' long laid by Petain and others to betray France and overturn the Republic to set up a dictatorship and that this explained why and how France collapsed so ignominiously in 1940.
That there was no conspiracy was admitted when the prosecutors abandoned this charge after over a week of failed attempts to provide any evidence though, in their summing up, the non existent conspiracy remained a central plank in their plea for the death sentence. The actual deeds of the Vichy regime played a very secondary role in the trial and the Jewish deportations were only mentioned within the broader framework of deportation of French workers. Not a single Jewish witness was called.
Although not mentioned by Mr. Jackson the obsession with the non existent 'conspiracy' has many parallels with the attempts by the Nuremberg prosecutors to 'prove' that the Nazi government had entered into a 'conspiracy' to wage aggressive war and against peace (please see my footnote *2 below). The 'crimes against humanity' charge was the last on the indictment and while it provided plenty of horrors was not the charge considered important at the time. It was the first two, conspiracy to wage aggressive war and crimes against peace, which were thought to be the most important. They weren't, no historian today takes the verdicts on those counts seriously as a guide to what happened in Germany in the years 1933-1939 just as no historian believes that Petain was part of a a long term well laid conspiracy to overthrow the French republic.
But the fact that the trial of Petain spent more time chasing chimeras then revealing the truth behind the Vichy regimes horrible crimes explains a great deal of why it took such a long and torturous journey for France to confront its past. Talleyrand, Napoleon's 'shit is silk stockings', and one of history's most cynical, if durable politicians (see my footnote *3 below), said 'Treason is a matter of dates' and on that count Petain failed over and over again.
Mr. Jackson is a wonderful nuanced guide through the trial and the complexities of Petain's memory in French politics through the 1950's and into the 60's. Without veering off subject he provides sufficient reminders throughout his account of the trial of what was either being ignored, evaded, lied about or not mentioned to provide context. He also provides more than enough insights into Petain's character to leave no one in any doubt that he was in essence a very unlikable man of monumental self absorption, cynical, and ready to betray anyone to preserve his own amour propre.
I think this is a wonderful and fascinating book but I have always found the history of Vichy fascinating along with the moral quandaries surrounding how any ordinary person, functionary, or major player, responds to questions of what is right and wrong, eternally fascinating. Maybe I read too much Graham Greene in my youth. Having seen so many reviewers who were unhappy with this book I can only disagree about its readability and fascination and say that you must understand beforehand what the book is about. If you do, and it is something that interests you, then I am sure you won't be disappointed.
*1 Least anyone imagine that singularity of vision is confined to people like the French with problematic history one only has to look at the illusions of so many British people with regards to Churchill and WWII. There is a touching belief that Churchill was animated by a moral outrage over the Nazi's because they were bad rather than by the simple 'raison d'etat' necessity of ensuring no continental power could challenge the UK's rather moth eaten preeminence.
*2 I can't help reproducing the following exchange between Goering and the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg regarding the remilitarisation of the Rhineland: Mr. Justice Jackson "...referring to mobilisation (sic) preparations in the Rhineland...(it was) of a character which had to be kept entirely secret from foreign powers?"...(Goering responded) "I do not believe I can recall the publication of the preparations of the United States for mobilisation."
*3 Talleyrand began as a Bishop under the ancien regime who abandoned (forever) his bishopric and clerical vows to become a supporter of the revolution, a minister under Napoleon, and eminence grise to the of Congress of Vienna and the Bourbon restoration.
Examining Petain's trial is a fascinating window on what was important to the French officials (the newly installed resistance government) and most French people at the time. De Gaulle considered the signing of the armistice the actual treason; the prosecutors that there was a 'conspiracy' long laid by Petain and others to betray France and overturn the Republic to set up a dictatorship and that this explained why and how France collapsed so ignominiously in 1940.
That there was no conspiracy was admitted when the prosecutors abandoned this charge after over a week of failed attempts to provide any evidence though, in their summing up, the non existent conspiracy remained a central plank in their plea for the death sentence. The actual deeds of the Vichy regime played a very secondary role in the trial and the Jewish deportations were only mentioned within the broader framework of deportation of French workers. Not a single Jewish witness was called.
Although not mentioned by Mr. Jackson the obsession with the non existent 'conspiracy' has many parallels with the attempts by the Nuremberg prosecutors to 'prove' that the Nazi government had entered into a 'conspiracy' to wage aggressive war and against peace (please see my footnote *2 below). The 'crimes against humanity' charge was the last on the indictment and while it provided plenty of horrors was not the charge considered important at the time. It was the first two, conspiracy to wage aggressive war and crimes against peace, which were thought to be the most important. They weren't, no historian today takes the verdicts on those counts seriously as a guide to what happened in Germany in the years 1933-1939 just as no historian believes that Petain was part of a a long term well laid conspiracy to overthrow the French republic.
But the fact that the trial of Petain spent more time chasing chimeras then revealing the truth behind the Vichy regimes horrible crimes explains a great deal of why it took such a long and torturous journey for France to confront its past. Talleyrand, Napoleon's 'shit is silk stockings', and one of history's most cynical, if durable politicians (see my footnote *3 below), said 'Treason is a matter of dates' and on that count Petain failed over and over again.
Mr. Jackson is a wonderful nuanced guide through the trial and the complexities of Petain's memory in French politics through the 1950's and into the 60's. Without veering off subject he provides sufficient reminders throughout his account of the trial of what was either being ignored, evaded, lied about or not mentioned to provide context. He also provides more than enough insights into Petain's character to leave no one in any doubt that he was in essence a very unlikable man of monumental self absorption, cynical, and ready to betray anyone to preserve his own amour propre.
I think this is a wonderful and fascinating book but I have always found the history of Vichy fascinating along with the moral quandaries surrounding how any ordinary person, functionary, or major player, responds to questions of what is right and wrong, eternally fascinating. Maybe I read too much Graham Greene in my youth. Having seen so many reviewers who were unhappy with this book I can only disagree about its readability and fascination and say that you must understand beforehand what the book is about. If you do, and it is something that interests you, then I am sure you won't be disappointed.
*1 Least anyone imagine that singularity of vision is confined to people like the French with problematic history one only has to look at the illusions of so many British people with regards to Churchill and WWII. There is a touching belief that Churchill was animated by a moral outrage over the Nazi's because they were bad rather than by the simple 'raison d'etat' necessity of ensuring no continental power could challenge the UK's rather moth eaten preeminence.
*2 I can't help reproducing the following exchange between Goering and the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg regarding the remilitarisation of the Rhineland: Mr. Justice Jackson "...referring to mobilisation (sic) preparations in the Rhineland...(it was) of a character which had to be kept entirely secret from foreign powers?"...(Goering responded) "I do not believe I can recall the publication of the preparations of the United States for mobilisation."
*3 Talleyrand began as a Bishop under the ancien regime who abandoned (forever) his bishopric and clerical vows to become a supporter of the revolution, a minister under Napoleon, and eminence grise to the of Congress of Vienna and the Bourbon restoration.
November 8, 2023
A few days prior to resigning as prime minister of France, Paul Reynaud said to the members of his cabinet who favored asking the Germans for an armistice, "You seem to think he is a "kind old gentleman" like Wilhelm II, who will take a couple of provinces from us, and then leave us in peace. You are wrong. Hitler is Genghis Khan". Yet on 16 June, 1940, Reynaud concluded he lacked support from the cabinet to continue the fight, and he resigned, knowing that Petain would come to power. Both Petain, and the French Army chef, Weygand, believed there was no point in prolonging the fighting, and Petain almost immediately announced that he would seek an armistice.
Julian Jackson is an historian who has deep knowledge of the period of Petain's tenure as French head of state, and his book, though primarily about the post-war trial and conviction of Petain, covers much more ground, and reaches some very interesting conclusions. One of the benefits of Jackson's book is the author has access to many documents and facts that were not available to the prosecutors in 1940, so we now know, for example, that far from "protecting" French Jews, Petain actually went well beyond what was required by the Germans, and personally marked-up the plans for round-ups of Jews, particularly foreign or recently naturalized Jews. And while many have excused Petain's actions by implying he was senile, the Petain who emerges in Jackson's account was an active participant in the actions of the Vichy government.
Jackson provides a very engaging account of the trial, and provides much background information on the witnesses and the milieu of August 1945 when the trial took place. The Petain who emerges from this account is one who probably shared a lot of Hitler's views about Jews, Slavs, women, art, culture, and the family, but he expressed those views much more mildly. He was clearly ultra-conservative, but his real treason was in not trusting the French people to carry on the fight. Instead he used his immense prestige as the victor of Verdun to persuade them to lay down their arms, when in fact there was another way open to France, and a realistic one, the path championed by de Gaulle: a fighting retreat to North Africa. As one witness, Louis Marin, a former minister in 1940, pointed out in thunderous testimony during the trial, "Belgium did not sign an armistice, the Netherlands did not sign an armistice, Norway did not sign an armistice, Poland did not sign an armistice, Greece did not sign an armistice, only France signed an armistice".
Much of the case that has been made in Petain's favor is that the armistice insured that France received better treatment from Germany with the Vichy government acting as a "filter" that moderated the rule of the Germans. Jackson's analysis shows that there is very little support for this argument, because with the exception of Poland, the Germans tended to use the existing state bureaucracies anyway to carry out their orders. The Germans had little choice; after 1941 they were so strapped for manpower there was no way they could have ruled the conquered countries without using existing local governments. And the vicious Milice organization set up by Vichy in 1943 in many cases exceeded the SS in its brutality toward the enemies of Germany and Vichy. It is fitting that Joseph Darnand, head of the Milice, was one of relatively few Vichy officials sentenced to death whose sentence was actually carried out. Petain received a death sentence for treason, but de Gaulle commuted it to a life sentence in order to avoid further divisions in France, in the hope of putting the Occupation years behind them.
Jackson presents some very convincing "what-if" cases which mainly deal with the scenario de Gaulle wanted to see enacted: removal of the government to Algeria to continue the battle from there, using the reteating French Army as a shield to move all of the air force to Algeria along with as much of the Army as could be transported there. The French Navy was a mighty force which could have severely restricted German movement of troops to Africa, and the Army and air force could have re-constituted themselves in Algeria, with aid from the US. Jackson believes this was a very reasonable idea, and he is an expert on the Battle of France; he points out that tough resistance by the French Army only folded after Petain announced he was seeking an armistice. If only Reynaud had called for a vote by the cabinet, and had sacked the defeatist Weygand and replaced him with General Huntziger to conduct the fighting retreat, and of course, if only he had thrown Petain out of the government. But Reynaud failed to rise to the moment, and the defeatists and traitors, Petain first among them, ruled France for four years.
Julian Jackson has written what is possibly the last word on Petain's responsibility for France's disgrace in 1940-44. Fortunately, France also had de Gaulle, who did as much as anyone could have after 1940 to restore France to its former place among nations.
Julian Jackson is an historian who has deep knowledge of the period of Petain's tenure as French head of state, and his book, though primarily about the post-war trial and conviction of Petain, covers much more ground, and reaches some very interesting conclusions. One of the benefits of Jackson's book is the author has access to many documents and facts that were not available to the prosecutors in 1940, so we now know, for example, that far from "protecting" French Jews, Petain actually went well beyond what was required by the Germans, and personally marked-up the plans for round-ups of Jews, particularly foreign or recently naturalized Jews. And while many have excused Petain's actions by implying he was senile, the Petain who emerges in Jackson's account was an active participant in the actions of the Vichy government.
Jackson provides a very engaging account of the trial, and provides much background information on the witnesses and the milieu of August 1945 when the trial took place. The Petain who emerges from this account is one who probably shared a lot of Hitler's views about Jews, Slavs, women, art, culture, and the family, but he expressed those views much more mildly. He was clearly ultra-conservative, but his real treason was in not trusting the French people to carry on the fight. Instead he used his immense prestige as the victor of Verdun to persuade them to lay down their arms, when in fact there was another way open to France, and a realistic one, the path championed by de Gaulle: a fighting retreat to North Africa. As one witness, Louis Marin, a former minister in 1940, pointed out in thunderous testimony during the trial, "Belgium did not sign an armistice, the Netherlands did not sign an armistice, Norway did not sign an armistice, Poland did not sign an armistice, Greece did not sign an armistice, only France signed an armistice".
Much of the case that has been made in Petain's favor is that the armistice insured that France received better treatment from Germany with the Vichy government acting as a "filter" that moderated the rule of the Germans. Jackson's analysis shows that there is very little support for this argument, because with the exception of Poland, the Germans tended to use the existing state bureaucracies anyway to carry out their orders. The Germans had little choice; after 1941 they were so strapped for manpower there was no way they could have ruled the conquered countries without using existing local governments. And the vicious Milice organization set up by Vichy in 1943 in many cases exceeded the SS in its brutality toward the enemies of Germany and Vichy. It is fitting that Joseph Darnand, head of the Milice, was one of relatively few Vichy officials sentenced to death whose sentence was actually carried out. Petain received a death sentence for treason, but de Gaulle commuted it to a life sentence in order to avoid further divisions in France, in the hope of putting the Occupation years behind them.
Jackson presents some very convincing "what-if" cases which mainly deal with the scenario de Gaulle wanted to see enacted: removal of the government to Algeria to continue the battle from there, using the reteating French Army as a shield to move all of the air force to Algeria along with as much of the Army as could be transported there. The French Navy was a mighty force which could have severely restricted German movement of troops to Africa, and the Army and air force could have re-constituted themselves in Algeria, with aid from the US. Jackson believes this was a very reasonable idea, and he is an expert on the Battle of France; he points out that tough resistance by the French Army only folded after Petain announced he was seeking an armistice. If only Reynaud had called for a vote by the cabinet, and had sacked the defeatist Weygand and replaced him with General Huntziger to conduct the fighting retreat, and of course, if only he had thrown Petain out of the government. But Reynaud failed to rise to the moment, and the defeatists and traitors, Petain first among them, ruled France for four years.
Julian Jackson has written what is possibly the last word on Petain's responsibility for France's disgrace in 1940-44. Fortunately, France also had de Gaulle, who did as much as anyone could have after 1940 to restore France to its former place among nations.
March 24, 2025
must read for any interest in WW II France
October 31, 2024
I’m struggling right now with the rating on this, but ultimately I’ve decided on a 3, rounded up to a 3.5. It was certainly an engrossing piece of nonfiction, with a healthy mixture of historical narrative mixed with compelling courtroom drama.
Unfortunately, I ran into the same problems as some of the other reviewers did who also perhaps went with 3 or 4 star ratings. While indeed Jackson cannot be faulted for his meticulous research and analysis of the Marshal Philippe Pétain’s trial for treason, there were parts that seemed almost repetitive or redundant (and in no real way helped me to better judge Pétain’s thought process during the Vichy occupation, and as a result, his true culpability in betraying France.
Most of the trial was - of course - largely politically motivated, and as it was remarked by politicians, journalists, military men alike… often those who ended up on the “right side of history” managed to do so not because of their superior moral values, but simply because they managed to switch to the “winning side” just in time.
Of course, this led to many of the witnesses called not only for the prosecution, but the defense as well, needing to constantly be reminded that they were there to testify on behalf of Pétain, not to defend their own reputations during occupied France.
I think Jackson did largely take for granted a lot of the Vichy regime figures that I’d only heard about very vaguely before starting this book. Of course I knew of Pétain, but others such as Renyaud and Laval, I’d only heard very vaguely of. I’m also very happy I just finished my prerequisite two semesters of French, because while translations were provided for the majority of the text, this wasn’t always the case… so fortunately I was able to piece together often what the headlines were announcing.
The courtroom drama was by far by the most interesting, but also so full of contradictory statements and things the French public weren’t even concerned with at the time. For instance, there was an obsession by the prosecution to prove somehow that Marshal Pétain was engaged in some sort of underground conspiracy… which was illogical though, considering no matter what else you may say about the Marshal, I don’t think anyone doubts his love for his country was genuine. So the idea that he was somehow plotting to overthrow France’s legitimate government with the Nazis is just absurd.
What was even more absurd is that the prosecutors would not let this idea rest, despite after finally admitting to the head judge that there was no real evidence to support this dubious claim.
Not sure what was sillier… the prosecution’s charge that Pétain was engaged in a conspiracy, or some of the defense (and their witnesses called forth) who claimed that the Marshal was a “sly old fox” simply playing a ”double jeu” - jeu, in French, translating to game. There was no real evidence of this either, aside from those loyal to Pétain who wanted to keep his legacy (and their connections with him at Vichy) as much in the interests of France as they could possibly argue.
I feel like I ultimately walked away from this book with more questions than answers. And perhaps that’s not the author’s fault - after all, it was Pétain who took an oath of silence during the trial and mostly pretended to be unbothered, even bored by the proceedings - except, of course, when a particular statement or witness didn’t sit right with him - then he’d occasionally “regain his bearings” and launch into a dramatic counteroffensive at the witness’s expense.
It really should have ended after the Verdict itself… or perhaps not quite then, but after a quick summary of Pétain’s life after the trial, along with other key players, it could have ended with the epilogue. I didn’t really see the necessity in talking in so much detail about how Pétain is viewed today, and the limited tourism and supporters trying to still put his name back into history‘s good books.
At the end, it just kind of seemed pathetic. Maybe he was an opportunist at best, but I’m not sure that it could be proven conclusively that he had anything to do with sending Jews to their death (something the country largely wanted to ignore at the end of the war, so much so that not a single Jewish witness was called, and the deportation of the Jews was a barely visible issue in the trial, mentioned I think during one day only and for a brief time at that).
I’d still recommend this book to those trying to put together the pieces of what the Vichy regime was - or wasn’t - thinking, over that course of 4-5 years. However, be prepared to come to a lot of the conclusions yourself as most of the witnesses - again, for the prosecution and the defense, as well as the panel of judges - were more interested in defending their own actions than answering questions pertaining to Pétain and giving us any real, collaborative stories to firmly uphold any beliefs we may have had for or against his actions.
Unfortunately, I ran into the same problems as some of the other reviewers did who also perhaps went with 3 or 4 star ratings. While indeed Jackson cannot be faulted for his meticulous research and analysis of the Marshal Philippe Pétain’s trial for treason, there were parts that seemed almost repetitive or redundant (and in no real way helped me to better judge Pétain’s thought process during the Vichy occupation, and as a result, his true culpability in betraying France.
Most of the trial was - of course - largely politically motivated, and as it was remarked by politicians, journalists, military men alike… often those who ended up on the “right side of history” managed to do so not because of their superior moral values, but simply because they managed to switch to the “winning side” just in time.
Of course, this led to many of the witnesses called not only for the prosecution, but the defense as well, needing to constantly be reminded that they were there to testify on behalf of Pétain, not to defend their own reputations during occupied France.
I think Jackson did largely take for granted a lot of the Vichy regime figures that I’d only heard about very vaguely before starting this book. Of course I knew of Pétain, but others such as Renyaud and Laval, I’d only heard very vaguely of. I’m also very happy I just finished my prerequisite two semesters of French, because while translations were provided for the majority of the text, this wasn’t always the case… so fortunately I was able to piece together often what the headlines were announcing.
The courtroom drama was by far by the most interesting, but also so full of contradictory statements and things the French public weren’t even concerned with at the time. For instance, there was an obsession by the prosecution to prove somehow that Marshal Pétain was engaged in some sort of underground conspiracy… which was illogical though, considering no matter what else you may say about the Marshal, I don’t think anyone doubts his love for his country was genuine. So the idea that he was somehow plotting to overthrow France’s legitimate government with the Nazis is just absurd.
What was even more absurd is that the prosecutors would not let this idea rest, despite after finally admitting to the head judge that there was no real evidence to support this dubious claim.
Not sure what was sillier… the prosecution’s charge that Pétain was engaged in a conspiracy, or some of the defense (and their witnesses called forth) who claimed that the Marshal was a “sly old fox” simply playing a ”double jeu” - jeu, in French, translating to game. There was no real evidence of this either, aside from those loyal to Pétain who wanted to keep his legacy (and their connections with him at Vichy) as much in the interests of France as they could possibly argue.
I feel like I ultimately walked away from this book with more questions than answers. And perhaps that’s not the author’s fault - after all, it was Pétain who took an oath of silence during the trial and mostly pretended to be unbothered, even bored by the proceedings - except, of course, when a particular statement or witness didn’t sit right with him - then he’d occasionally “regain his bearings” and launch into a dramatic counteroffensive at the witness’s expense.
It really should have ended after the Verdict itself… or perhaps not quite then, but after a quick summary of Pétain’s life after the trial, along with other key players, it could have ended with the epilogue. I didn’t really see the necessity in talking in so much detail about how Pétain is viewed today, and the limited tourism and supporters trying to still put his name back into history‘s good books.
At the end, it just kind of seemed pathetic. Maybe he was an opportunist at best, but I’m not sure that it could be proven conclusively that he had anything to do with sending Jews to their death (something the country largely wanted to ignore at the end of the war, so much so that not a single Jewish witness was called, and the deportation of the Jews was a barely visible issue in the trial, mentioned I think during one day only and for a brief time at that).
I’d still recommend this book to those trying to put together the pieces of what the Vichy regime was - or wasn’t - thinking, over that course of 4-5 years. However, be prepared to come to a lot of the conclusions yourself as most of the witnesses - again, for the prosecution and the defense, as well as the panel of judges - were more interested in defending their own actions than answering questions pertaining to Pétain and giving us any real, collaborative stories to firmly uphold any beliefs we may have had for or against his actions.
December 28, 2023
It’s always been fascinating to me how countries choose to navigate some of the darker parts of their history. Particularly when it comes to WW2.
You can take the American way of basically never apologizing or admitting you did anything wrong ever (Harry Truman famously said that he never lost a moment’s sleep over the decision to drop 2 atomic bombs on Japan).
You can take the Japanese way of initially being somewhat repentant for some of the evil committed in your name but then slowly walk it all back year by year until you basically have reached the American version cited above.
Or you can do what the Germans did and basically full on admit what you did, try as best you can to make amends for it, and make it such a part of your culture that you try to ensure it never happens again.
Then there is France.
France was unique among the European powers in that it was the only German occupied country to have in theory full autonomy over a large swath of its own land.
Set up in the town of Vichy, it was an administrative state run by French war hero Phillipe Petain.
After France was liberated in 1944 however (and before then as well), many began to question if Petain was simply trying to make the best of a horrible situation by collaborating with the Germans (he infamously compromised with the Nazis who were demanding the roundup of Jews by offering up non-French Jews in larger numbers), or was he actively collaborating in order to maintain his grip on power.
Nobody of course can ever read a person’s heart but the trial of Petain tried to answer some of these questions that fractured the country.
Just like with fascists today, there was a large portion of the public that were going to support him no matter what as they viewed him above all else as a patriot.
What is most interesting about this book however is the aftermath of the verdict. What happened to the people involved in the trial and more importantly, what would be the legacy it left in the decades going forward.
In many ways Petain the symbol became more important than Petain the man.
That he would be referenced by a prominent far-right candidate in France’s most recent election perhaps illustrates this fact perfectly.
You can take the American way of basically never apologizing or admitting you did anything wrong ever (Harry Truman famously said that he never lost a moment’s sleep over the decision to drop 2 atomic bombs on Japan).
You can take the Japanese way of initially being somewhat repentant for some of the evil committed in your name but then slowly walk it all back year by year until you basically have reached the American version cited above.
Or you can do what the Germans did and basically full on admit what you did, try as best you can to make amends for it, and make it such a part of your culture that you try to ensure it never happens again.
Then there is France.
France was unique among the European powers in that it was the only German occupied country to have in theory full autonomy over a large swath of its own land.
Set up in the town of Vichy, it was an administrative state run by French war hero Phillipe Petain.
After France was liberated in 1944 however (and before then as well), many began to question if Petain was simply trying to make the best of a horrible situation by collaborating with the Germans (he infamously compromised with the Nazis who were demanding the roundup of Jews by offering up non-French Jews in larger numbers), or was he actively collaborating in order to maintain his grip on power.
Nobody of course can ever read a person’s heart but the trial of Petain tried to answer some of these questions that fractured the country.
Just like with fascists today, there was a large portion of the public that were going to support him no matter what as they viewed him above all else as a patriot.
What is most interesting about this book however is the aftermath of the verdict. What happened to the people involved in the trial and more importantly, what would be the legacy it left in the decades going forward.
In many ways Petain the symbol became more important than Petain the man.
That he would be referenced by a prominent far-right candidate in France’s most recent election perhaps illustrates this fact perfectly.
October 12, 2025
As emeritus professor of twentieth-century French history at the University of London, Julian Jackson (b. 1954) is excellently placed to reflect on the notorious 1945 trial of Philippe Pétain, as well as on its relevance for the 2020s. Eighty years after the Second World War, the case of Pétain remains sensitive; Jackson’s title, France on trial, could hardly have been more apt. His aim is not to reopen the trial, but to revisit it in the light of its cultural, political and social implications.
In June 1940, at the age of 84 (!), Philippe Pétain had just become head of the French government. Once the hero of Verdun, Pétain’s star had risen so brilliantly after the First World War that he seemed surrounded by an an ‘aura of royalty’. While Marshal Pétain might have been a providential saviour for conservatives at the time, Jackson also describes him as a man likely trapped in his own legend – ‘Je fais à la France le don de ma personne’. After signing an armistice with Nazi Germany, Pétain moved his government to Vichy – little more than a spa resort – where he established a quasi-dictatorship, known as the Vichy regime. In doing so, France’s fate differed greatly from that of other Western European countries during the occupation.
Jackson emphasises that Pétain, whose trial began on 23 July 1945, shortly after the liberation, was not accused of crimes against humanity but of treason – his collaboration and collusion with the Nazis, and especially the armistice, were a thorn in the side of Charles de Gaulle and his allies. Of course, the trial was political, and the result largely clear from the outset. Yet Jackson argues that there was more to the case than merely the conviction of a former war hero turned traitor. In a way, the trial was about France’s attitude towards the occupation. It is therefore no wonder that people compared it to the trials of Louis XVI (1792-93) and Alfred Dreyfus (1899).
In exposing the arguments from both sides, Jackson also sheds light on contemporary political debates. In line with Giulano da Empoli's advise in The Hour of the Predator , the book offers a profound insight into recent history for understanding the present.
The book contains a wealth of detail and related themes, yet remains accessible. The chapters on shifting opinions in the decades that followed are valuable and reminded me of Geraldine Schwarz’s Those Who Forget: My Family's Story in Nazi Europe . They make it clear both why Pétain still enjoys popular support more than seventy years after his death, and why we should care to educate new generations about the wrongs of the Vichy regime.
In June 1940, at the age of 84 (!), Philippe Pétain had just become head of the French government. Once the hero of Verdun, Pétain’s star had risen so brilliantly after the First World War that he seemed surrounded by an an ‘aura of royalty’. While Marshal Pétain might have been a providential saviour for conservatives at the time, Jackson also describes him as a man likely trapped in his own legend – ‘Je fais à la France le don de ma personne’. After signing an armistice with Nazi Germany, Pétain moved his government to Vichy – little more than a spa resort – where he established a quasi-dictatorship, known as the Vichy regime. In doing so, France’s fate differed greatly from that of other Western European countries during the occupation.
Jackson emphasises that Pétain, whose trial began on 23 July 1945, shortly after the liberation, was not accused of crimes against humanity but of treason – his collaboration and collusion with the Nazis, and especially the armistice, were a thorn in the side of Charles de Gaulle and his allies. Of course, the trial was political, and the result largely clear from the outset. Yet Jackson argues that there was more to the case than merely the conviction of a former war hero turned traitor. In a way, the trial was about France’s attitude towards the occupation. It is therefore no wonder that people compared it to the trials of Louis XVI (1792-93) and Alfred Dreyfus (1899).
De Gaulle, [Raymond] Aron and [Simone] Weil all opposed Vichy – but each took a different view of Pétain’s crime. For de Gaulle, the crime was the armistice and nothing but the armistice; for Aron the armistice was defensible and Pétain’s crime came two years later, when he remained in France even after the Germans had flouted the armistice by occupying the entire country; Weil condemned the armistice as an act of collective cowardice which could not be blamed on Pétain alone.
In exposing the arguments from both sides, Jackson also sheds light on contemporary political debates. In line with Giulano da Empoli's advise in The Hour of the Predator , the book offers a profound insight into recent history for understanding the present.
For Isorni, de Gaulle’s ‘betrayal’ was easy to explain: unlike Pétain, who believed that defending France meant defending her ‘soil’, de Gaulle had a purely abstract vision of France as an ‘idea’. Thus he had left France in 1940; Pétain had stayed. Pétain, if he had lived, would have refused to give up the soil of Algeria, which had been French since 1830; de Gaulle had no qualms about doing so if it served his ‘idea’ of France.
The book contains a wealth of detail and related themes, yet remains accessible. The chapters on shifting opinions in the decades that followed are valuable and reminded me of Geraldine Schwarz’s Those Who Forget: My Family's Story in Nazi Europe . They make it clear both why Pétain still enjoys popular support more than seventy years after his death, and why we should care to educate new generations about the wrongs of the Vichy regime.
September 2, 2023
Outstanding book, for me one of the history books of the year without a shadow of a doubt. Written with wit, verve, elan and great observations. Petain at his peak in 1918 the great hero of the French Army from World War One, has reached his nadir by 1945, the blood of 75,000 Jews and many resistants on his hands. But whoa hold your horses..General de Gaulle -- once close to Petain with whom he was to collaborate on a book on the history of the French Army with the goal of Marshal P being invited into the Academie Francaise until de G's prominent proboscis was put out of joint -- decides he should be charged just with treason against the French state.
Incredible as it sounds but Jackson relates how the fate of the Jews and the disgraceful and willing role Petain's administration and the police played is discussed for a shorter period of time than whether the octogenarian signed a particular telegram or not.
.Jackson brilliantly observes the long list of former PM's, Daladier and Reynaud especially, and other dignitaries who are on a salvation mission of their own slinging insults and point scoring whilst the uniformed Marshal sat stroking his gloves, ear cupped behind them. The only one of the former PMs who emerges with credit is Leon Blum.
One witness the defence thinks is a gold mine for them is a former Gaullist officer, General Eon who Jackson informs us when he got to London "He spent hours in the lift at Carlton Gardens (de G's HQ) in London hoping to improve his English by chatting to the lift boy, and he emerged from the war speaking English with a Cockney accent..." needless to say his testimony in favour of Petain proved farcical and he was laughed literally out of the court room having described a famous speech by de Gaulle on June 18 1940 as 'very pretty' and 'very French'...the general 'skipping (out of court' wrote one journalist as if he "was one of Snow White's seven dwarves."
Jackson does not let the judiciary escape lightly either, with justified withering assessments of both the chief judge and the prosecutor, Andre Mornet, who had prosecuted Mata Hari in the Great War and had brutally interrogated her..."He scents blood and then charges like a wild boar" remarked a non admirer and legendary lawyer of the era Maurice Garcon. However, he was like so many also compromised by his association with Vichy..he was a member of the DeNaturalisation Commission.
It is Petain who dominates of course but more his vow of silence, after giving an opening statement. Again Jackson in brilliant at highlighting how the Marshal chose when to be deaf and when not to be, usually when he felt he had been traduced...but when asked sensitive questions he pleads deafness. Needless to say his most effective lawyer of the trio he had the young Jacques Isorni -- who was to devote his whole life to defending Petain's reputation to the detriment of his career -- tells Petain bluntly when he asks him Mornet will demand "his head." He got it but de Gaulle commuted the sentence, perhaps one last debt repaid to his old mentor.
There is no doubt about Petain's guilt -- he was a truly ghastly man -- and Jackson says age is no defence, he was enthusiastic in most areas of collaboration. Indeed Jackson rightly modernises the debate over Petain saying that the extreme right presidential candidate Eric Zemmour who tried to rehabilitate Petain's reputation in the 2022 campaign lost the argument hands down to slightly less far right Marine Le Pen.
'The Petain case is closed" says Jackson ...and it could not have a finer final flourish than this authoritative and sublime tome.
Incredible as it sounds but Jackson relates how the fate of the Jews and the disgraceful and willing role Petain's administration and the police played is discussed for a shorter period of time than whether the octogenarian signed a particular telegram or not.
.Jackson brilliantly observes the long list of former PM's, Daladier and Reynaud especially, and other dignitaries who are on a salvation mission of their own slinging insults and point scoring whilst the uniformed Marshal sat stroking his gloves, ear cupped behind them. The only one of the former PMs who emerges with credit is Leon Blum.
One witness the defence thinks is a gold mine for them is a former Gaullist officer, General Eon who Jackson informs us when he got to London "He spent hours in the lift at Carlton Gardens (de G's HQ) in London hoping to improve his English by chatting to the lift boy, and he emerged from the war speaking English with a Cockney accent..." needless to say his testimony in favour of Petain proved farcical and he was laughed literally out of the court room having described a famous speech by de Gaulle on June 18 1940 as 'very pretty' and 'very French'...the general 'skipping (out of court' wrote one journalist as if he "was one of Snow White's seven dwarves."
Jackson does not let the judiciary escape lightly either, with justified withering assessments of both the chief judge and the prosecutor, Andre Mornet, who had prosecuted Mata Hari in the Great War and had brutally interrogated her..."He scents blood and then charges like a wild boar" remarked a non admirer and legendary lawyer of the era Maurice Garcon. However, he was like so many also compromised by his association with Vichy..he was a member of the DeNaturalisation Commission.
It is Petain who dominates of course but more his vow of silence, after giving an opening statement. Again Jackson in brilliant at highlighting how the Marshal chose when to be deaf and when not to be, usually when he felt he had been traduced...but when asked sensitive questions he pleads deafness. Needless to say his most effective lawyer of the trio he had the young Jacques Isorni -- who was to devote his whole life to defending Petain's reputation to the detriment of his career -- tells Petain bluntly when he asks him Mornet will demand "his head." He got it but de Gaulle commuted the sentence, perhaps one last debt repaid to his old mentor.
There is no doubt about Petain's guilt -- he was a truly ghastly man -- and Jackson says age is no defence, he was enthusiastic in most areas of collaboration. Indeed Jackson rightly modernises the debate over Petain saying that the extreme right presidential candidate Eric Zemmour who tried to rehabilitate Petain's reputation in the 2022 campaign lost the argument hands down to slightly less far right Marine Le Pen.
'The Petain case is closed" says Jackson ...and it could not have a finer final flourish than this authoritative and sublime tome.
February 6, 2025
Bien que le sujet m'intéresse en raison du fait que, étant Roumain, je ne connais pas en détail l'histoire de la France, le livre m'a laissé une impression d'incomplétude, comme s'il y avait plus à dire ou que d'autres aspects avaient été omis. L'auteur étant étranger, il me semble étrange qu'il passe sous silence l'implication de l'Angleterre et des États-Unis dans la politique française entre 1930 et 1960.
August 8, 2023
De Gaulle had written that the Revolution had made France's generals the victims of political upheavals, depriving them 'of prestige, often of life, sometimes of honour'. Pétain amended this to 'of prestige, sometimes of honour, often of life'. De Gaulle shot back: 'It is an ascending hierarchy: prestige, life, honour.' 'Honour' or 'life'—protecting the 'idea' of France or protecting (or claiming to protect) the French—that was the nub of the conflict between Pétain and de Gaulle in 1940.
A fascinating and accessible book about a troubling part of history. Examining the history of Pétain and Vichy through the device of the former's trial was a dynamic way to present the information, although the author also discussed topics glossed over in the trial itself (like the regime's treatment of the Jews). The subject matter of France on Trial is not cheerful, but the book is a real page turner. An excellent introduction to the topic. 4.5.
A fascinating and accessible book about a troubling part of history. Examining the history of Pétain and Vichy through the device of the former's trial was a dynamic way to present the information, although the author also discussed topics glossed over in the trial itself (like the regime's treatment of the Jews). The subject matter of France on Trial is not cheerful, but the book is a real page turner. An excellent introduction to the topic. 4.5.
September 6, 2024
Thoroughly enjoyed this one, a period of history I always read about but not in France. Very well written and learnt a lot. As I didn’t know what happened, it was like reading a crime novel for me, won’t spoil it for any other readers though
November 9, 2023
Listened to the audiobook, loved it. I found it engrossing and incredibly interesting. I love seeing cross sections of history being illuminated in enormous eras of world history.
September 12, 2023
I devoured this book, I loved every aspect of it. It was well written, clearly argued and very intellectually stimulating.
One the one hand the central 'event' of the book : the trial against Phillipe Pétain, was absolutely riveting to follow. Jackson really puts the reader in the seat as if you are a juror and presents the case step by step. The passion and importance of the case drips from the pages. It really helped that many witness statements or declarations by defense or prosecution are fully quoted. I didn't think this stopped the narrative flow at all but created a very immersive atmosphere. It certainly did help that a lot of the figures who at the trail where impressive orators who excel at convincing and moving people.
On the other hand the book also focuses on a broader perspective then just the trial. It both explains the context in which the Vichy regime ended and how the memory of Vichy and Pétain has influenced( and haunted) France since 1945. This also shows that it isn't just 1 person that is judged but also the whole French nation and where it's responsibility begins and ends.
This is history as it ought to be written !
One the one hand the central 'event' of the book : the trial against Phillipe Pétain, was absolutely riveting to follow. Jackson really puts the reader in the seat as if you are a juror and presents the case step by step. The passion and importance of the case drips from the pages. It really helped that many witness statements or declarations by defense or prosecution are fully quoted. I didn't think this stopped the narrative flow at all but created a very immersive atmosphere. It certainly did help that a lot of the figures who at the trail where impressive orators who excel at convincing and moving people.
On the other hand the book also focuses on a broader perspective then just the trial. It both explains the context in which the Vichy regime ended and how the memory of Vichy and Pétain has influenced( and haunted) France since 1945. This also shows that it isn't just 1 person that is judged but also the whole French nation and where it's responsibility begins and ends.
This is history as it ought to be written !
July 17, 2025
This might be the best book I've ever read. A gripping, knowledgeable, informative page-turner exploring the trial of Marshal Petain in 1945. It is so rare that a history book grips me like this, I was desperate for a spare hour to jump back in and read abuot the witness testimony, the biases of the jurors, and the societal schism the trial caused.
I wouldn't say I have a particular interest in French history during WW2, so there was a lot of basics that I picked up, and the relationship between Petain and de Gaulle was fascinating, with Petain being aa mentor of sorts in the 1920s, and they ended up leading the two "French" governments during the war.
It was just such a great book, it read like a thriller or Michael Connelly courtroom drama, with great characters, speeches, and a fascinating epilogue about the role of Petain in France in the modern era and his impact on the Far-Right. I don't think I had fully reckoned with the impact of the Vichy regime on the French psyche, and their understandable desire to highlight the Resistance and hide the Collaborators. This book has made me want to learn more, and visit France again to get a sense of how this is being played out in the modern political and cultural arena.
A great book. A classic in every sense of the word. I would recommend to any and everyone.
Unequivocal 5/5
I wouldn't say I have a particular interest in French history during WW2, so there was a lot of basics that I picked up, and the relationship between Petain and de Gaulle was fascinating, with Petain being aa mentor of sorts in the 1920s, and they ended up leading the two "French" governments during the war.
It was just such a great book, it read like a thriller or Michael Connelly courtroom drama, with great characters, speeches, and a fascinating epilogue about the role of Petain in France in the modern era and his impact on the Far-Right. I don't think I had fully reckoned with the impact of the Vichy regime on the French psyche, and their understandable desire to highlight the Resistance and hide the Collaborators. This book has made me want to learn more, and visit France again to get a sense of how this is being played out in the modern political and cultural arena.
A great book. A classic in every sense of the word. I would recommend to any and everyone.
Unequivocal 5/5
July 1, 2024
A very good book on Petain's trial and its aftermath, meticulously researched and thoroughly told, neither dry or boring in delivery, with an appropriate touch of irony in the last part. Also, a rather unexciting, even depressing read.
The problem of the book is the reality it is trying to put into a readable story. Most of the personalities that populate it - the politicians and army officers of the 3rd Republic, Vichy guys, judges, prosecutors, defendants, even Petain himself - look like moral midgets locked in petty quarrels, consistently bringing up old, no longer relevant feuds, asking wrong questions and looking for wrong truths about their country. Instead of trying to understand what exactly was happening to them all in 1940-44, after the Vichy regime had appeared on stage, they keep circling around the armistice and the 1930s and a motley of Vichyist fictions, some more silly than others - so much so that it actually takes the last chapter and Julian Jackson himself to finally construct a cohesive picture from these fictions and then dismantle it.
Long story short, it is indeed a book about France on trial, but it is a story of how confused France actually carries it out and evades it at the same time because the Vichy years are too dangerously ambigious to examine them in full detail. And this is where the greatest irony of the situation lies, Petain trial all being about doing the morally right thing (i.e. condemning Petain), while its participants had quite a vague idea what his regime actually had been and how it should be judged. And the main moral questions about the reality of French life under it, which could help to determine this, - why were the French willing to choose a safer life at the cost of dishonour and collaboration in 1940 in the first place (and apparently they still see it as a choosable option)? and was it really a morally right choice to make? and was this choice still justified by anything by 1944? and what the Frenchmen, either left or right, should think of their country and themselves if Vichy was indeed an integral part of their history, just what a good chunk of France would want her to be: extremely right-wing, authoritarian, undemocratic, Jewish-free? - these questions weren't really asked at all exactly because they would have required the French to judge themselves along with their Marechal.
The problem of the book is the reality it is trying to put into a readable story. Most of the personalities that populate it - the politicians and army officers of the 3rd Republic, Vichy guys, judges, prosecutors, defendants, even Petain himself - look like moral midgets locked in petty quarrels, consistently bringing up old, no longer relevant feuds, asking wrong questions and looking for wrong truths about their country. Instead of trying to understand what exactly was happening to them all in 1940-44, after the Vichy regime had appeared on stage, they keep circling around the armistice and the 1930s and a motley of Vichyist fictions, some more silly than others - so much so that it actually takes the last chapter and Julian Jackson himself to finally construct a cohesive picture from these fictions and then dismantle it.
Long story short, it is indeed a book about France on trial, but it is a story of how confused France actually carries it out and evades it at the same time because the Vichy years are too dangerously ambigious to examine them in full detail. And this is where the greatest irony of the situation lies, Petain trial all being about doing the morally right thing (i.e. condemning Petain), while its participants had quite a vague idea what his regime actually had been and how it should be judged. And the main moral questions about the reality of French life under it, which could help to determine this, - why were the French willing to choose a safer life at the cost of dishonour and collaboration in 1940 in the first place (and apparently they still see it as a choosable option)? and was it really a morally right choice to make? and was this choice still justified by anything by 1944? and what the Frenchmen, either left or right, should think of their country and themselves if Vichy was indeed an integral part of their history, just what a good chunk of France would want her to be: extremely right-wing, authoritarian, undemocratic, Jewish-free? - these questions weren't really asked at all exactly because they would have required the French to judge themselves along with their Marechal.
February 13, 2024
A very comprehensive and well written account of Petain and the Vichy government in unoccupied France during the Second World War. The only problem I had with the book was the sheer number of participants in the trial and the numerous differing accounts of the decisions that were taken. Almost more interesting than the trial is the reverberations over Petain and the Vichy government which continue to this day. It provides a picture of a country struggling to deal with the darker aspects of its past and the attempts by right wing political factions to constantly rewrite history for their own purposes.
August 10, 2023
This excellent book uses the trial of Marshall Pétain as a handle to get to grips with the murky nature of the Vichy regime that the accused headed from 1940 to 1944/5. This is often dismissed as a mere puppet state and a German ally, but that oversimplifies the story: Vichy was not entirely without power, if only because it still controlled many French colonies. And its willingness to ally with the Axis was often snubbed by Berlin and Rome, who wanted to strip their defeated enemy of its assets, not embrace it into the fold.
Of Vichy’s conflicted positions and dishonourable compromises, Pétain was the enigmatic core, part actor, part symbol. It is 2023 and the impending trials of Donald J. Trump come to mind. The point is again made that the prosecution of a former head of state is inherently political, and inevitably so. Justice may be difficult to achieve but that should not be an excuse for impunity, and Pétain’s 1945 trial represented a half-hearted attempt to navigate these treacherous shores. The author cites a juror who was of the opinion that none of the participants in this trial — judge, jury, prosecutor or defence lawyers — had done well, but he was still satisfied with the result. Is that a victory for the system? Jackson dissects the process with incisive observations, to show how compromised everyone involved was. But he also analyses the evidence in enough detail to convince us that justice was done, in a way.
Philippe Pétain was an old man who succeeded in overthrowing a Republic that he despised, but he appears to have created difficulties for his accusers by not having a plan. In court the prosecution tried to convince the jurors and the public that Pétain had organised and lead a conspiracy, but without much success. Instead the picture that emerges in Jackson’s account is one of haphazard decisions, almost none of them good, and a tendency to take the advice of the last person he talked to, most of them bad. The accused was not an evil mastermind, but he harmed his country by his poor decisions and defective moral compass, and that was enough for the jury to convict.
The last chapters explore the long political aftermath of the trial, (almost) up to the present day. The ghost of the Marshall continues to haunt French politics, but he is not a very active spook.
Of Vichy’s conflicted positions and dishonourable compromises, Pétain was the enigmatic core, part actor, part symbol. It is 2023 and the impending trials of Donald J. Trump come to mind. The point is again made that the prosecution of a former head of state is inherently political, and inevitably so. Justice may be difficult to achieve but that should not be an excuse for impunity, and Pétain’s 1945 trial represented a half-hearted attempt to navigate these treacherous shores. The author cites a juror who was of the opinion that none of the participants in this trial — judge, jury, prosecutor or defence lawyers — had done well, but he was still satisfied with the result. Is that a victory for the system? Jackson dissects the process with incisive observations, to show how compromised everyone involved was. But he also analyses the evidence in enough detail to convince us that justice was done, in a way.
Philippe Pétain was an old man who succeeded in overthrowing a Republic that he despised, but he appears to have created difficulties for his accusers by not having a plan. In court the prosecution tried to convince the jurors and the public that Pétain had organised and lead a conspiracy, but without much success. Instead the picture that emerges in Jackson’s account is one of haphazard decisions, almost none of them good, and a tendency to take the advice of the last person he talked to, most of them bad. The accused was not an evil mastermind, but he harmed his country by his poor decisions and defective moral compass, and that was enough for the jury to convict.
The last chapters explore the long political aftermath of the trial, (almost) up to the present day. The ghost of the Marshall continues to haunt French politics, but he is not a very active spook.
June 10, 2024
I struggled to get into this book. I typically enjoy legal history, but not so much this book.
Part of the problem is that I am not overly familiar with French History or their legal system.
I suspect that people more familiar with WWII and France would enjoy this one, but it was slow for me.
Part of the problem is that I am not overly familiar with French History or their legal system.
I suspect that people more familiar with WWII and France would enjoy this one, but it was slow for me.
July 20, 2024
Absolutely brilliant, engaging writing and fascinating subject.
I have always been interested in how to square the ebbs and flows of history with the precise dates of beginning and end; this book was a wonderful introduction to the Vichy regime after 9th August 1944.
I have always been interested in how to square the ebbs and flows of history with the precise dates of beginning and end; this book was a wonderful introduction to the Vichy regime after 9th August 1944.
September 10, 2024
Very thorough, very interesting, and I think a very fair account of the Marshal Pétain trial and beyond. Fascinating to learn more about Vichy France.
December 19, 2025
I feel as though at times I would have appreciated the book more if I had read about Vichy France before. Despite not having the background knowledge however this was a great read, an interesting using Petain as a centre piece to explain French history and politics.
June 14, 2024
A fascinatingly interesting history - covers this particular period with detail and analysis and written with a novelist’s skill for setting the scene. Well worth reading in the context of how a country memorialises itself and feeds into current debate.
June 27, 2025
I admit my ignorance when it comes to French history particularly during WWII and the decisions made by Marshal Petain which changed the course of the war within France and the divisions that exist among its people even today. Absolutely fascinating! Lots of information packed into this book, but its contents made for great discussions with Andrew who read this before me and have made me a little less ignorant.
April 24, 2024
Presumes we know things
From 1940 to 1944, a very right wing French government headed by Marshal Petain, collaborated with the Nazis to manage the country. This book looks at how Petain was handled after the country was liberated.
The book is surprisingly fair to Petain. His defence was “it’d’ve been worse without me,” and as you read the book, you’ll find yourself wondering if he was right. This is the strength of the book. You aren’t going to feel like the author is trying to force you to hate the guy.
The problem is that this balance is thrown away in the last quarter of the book. Petain and his cronies become increasingly demonised. This is probably a good thing, as, at best, he’s increasingly divisive, and more likely much, much worse.
Another thing you’ll notice is that the Holocaust isn’t really mentioned. Jews are mentioned, but not really during the trial. No other minority sent to the camps are covered at all.
The final thing that irritated me was that the author has opinions about France, and what happened there after the war. I found myself thinking “I’d’ve liked a bit of background there.”
If you can get over these issues, you might like it better than I did.
From 1940 to 1944, a very right wing French government headed by Marshal Petain, collaborated with the Nazis to manage the country. This book looks at how Petain was handled after the country was liberated.
The book is surprisingly fair to Petain. His defence was “it’d’ve been worse without me,” and as you read the book, you’ll find yourself wondering if he was right. This is the strength of the book. You aren’t going to feel like the author is trying to force you to hate the guy.
The problem is that this balance is thrown away in the last quarter of the book. Petain and his cronies become increasingly demonised. This is probably a good thing, as, at best, he’s increasingly divisive, and more likely much, much worse.
Another thing you’ll notice is that the Holocaust isn’t really mentioned. Jews are mentioned, but not really during the trial. No other minority sent to the camps are covered at all.
The final thing that irritated me was that the author has opinions about France, and what happened there after the war. I found myself thinking “I’d’ve liked a bit of background there.”
If you can get over these issues, you might like it better than I did.
December 29, 2023
Solid book on the trial for Marshall Petain and his role in cooperating with the Nazis while running Vichy France.
I thought this was interesting but I think it could have focused more on what Petain did as a ruler of Vichy France and less on the after affects of the trial.
I thought this was interesting but I think it could have focused more on what Petain did as a ruler of Vichy France and less on the after affects of the trial.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews