Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryanrasmussen | Hacker News Reader

I don't think external occupation really works, yes there are a few people alive that have a memory of being oppressed by the invaders but that 5 years or so of Nazi rule does not wipe out the memory of democracy before it.

In the same way Denmark was a democracy since 1849 but because they had some people bossing them around that nobody wanted for 5 years all the traditions and understanding of how democracy works went out the window? I might actually think that appreciation of democracy might increase if you've had it, lost it, and then recover it.

View on HN

If you look at the graphs for both Denmark and Norway it's clear that the nazi occupations "reset" the count for the sake of those maps - they're mapping the amount of time since the latest emergence of democracy. It'd be interesting to do a map with short-lived occupations excluded too, but it'd be a different thing.

Yes, I understand the concept. I'm saying I think the concept is bull for the reason I mentioned.

>they're mapping the amount of time since the latest emergence of democracy.

again emergence of democracy because you have a revolution and overthrow the dictatorial elements of your own society, and re-establishment of democracy by kicking out some invaders seem like two very different things.

All that may be true, but this research is about how old existing democracies are, not about which countries have a tradition of democracy that precedes the existence of the current democratic state.

With due respect, your comment would benefit from a better understanding of French 20th century history. Vichy France was not Nazi rule, and it was not oppression by invaders. It was oppression of the French and by (some of) the French, albeit with significant coercion from the Nazis.

To be clear: Vichy was a client state of Nazi Germany, but from 1940 to 1942 its southern portion was not occupied. It was collaborationist, but Vichy was not simply ruled from Berlin.

It would not be accurate to imagine Vichy as an entirely foreign invention. Like in much of Europe at that time, there were many domestic supporters of reactionary conservatism and authoritarianism. As for the strength of democratic sentiment in France, remember that a President of France (and republican) once gave it only the faint praise: "republicanism is the form of government that divides France least."

The domestic political situation was in no way unique to France. There existed significant authoritarian movements and tendencies in every European country at this time. You are probably aware that both Portugal and Spain had adopted authoritarianism, and not simply by foreign imposition. My point is: the Nazis found an existing domestic reservoir of authoritarian French willing to collaborate.

Just to provide a few more facts about Vichy:

Vichy was the French government formed after invasion and occupation of northern France by Nazi Germany. Its head of government was general Philippe Petain, and Pierre Laval was its prime minister. Both had been significant domestic political figures in France. Vichy France was formed after the National Assembly voted to give full powers to Petain.

Vichy had its own paramilitary militia (the Milice) consisting of about 30,000 Frenchman. This was similar to the SS and Gestapo, but considered more dangerous by resistance French.

Of course, unoccupied Vichy adopted anti-Semitic policies and deported Jews to be murdered by the Nazis. Maurice Papon (later the prefect of police in Paris 1958-1967) participated. You can look up yourself his subsequent misdeeds during the Algerian War. Unfortunately, even after the fall of the Nazis, there continued (and continue) to be significant reactionary and authoritarian political elements in France.

If you wish to learn more about this period, you can start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France

>With due respect, your comment would benefit from a better understanding of French 20th century history

In the comment to which I replied to there was a reference to Nazi occupation, and there was a reference to Vichy France.

I made a short paragraph commenting about Nazi occupation but not mentioning Vichy France. Why would you think that meant I did not know what Vichy France was? Normally I would think this person wants to focus on the Nazi occupation part here for some reason?

Then I segued into another paragraph where I mentioned Denmark and said I did not think the Nazi occupation meant that democracy was destroyed. At this point I might even think, that guy wants to talk about Denmark, or maybe just various Nazi occupations in general and thus his reasons for ignoring Vichy France!

But at any rate my point is that if Denmark had engaged in Vichy like collaboration with the Germans, if there had been established an independent Danish government forced into a quasi-fascistic mode then I suppose the return to democracy would have been more difficult and noteworthy, but as there was not such a system (there was an attempted National Socialist Danish party but it got very few votes) I don't think occupation was a destroyer of the democratic norms, especially as the Danish government was officially disbanded at one point in protest of the death penalty for sabotage being set by the occupying Germans.

Why did I say so much about Denmark in this post, and so much in the previous, and not really seem to care about Vichy France? I don't know, my name is just Bryan Rasmussen and I suppose the reasons for my interests in Denmark in this discussion must remain shrouded in impregnable mystery.

Others can judge whether I misread your comment.

Whether you are Rasmussen or Ruggeri or live in Denmark, Italy, or the United States, when you respond to a thread about France it is not mysterious that others will interpret your reply with the context of that country, rather than substitute, post hoc, the context of Denmark.

> I don't think external occupation really works, yes there are a few people alive that have a memory of being oppressed by the invaders but that 5 years or so of Nazi rule does not wipe out the memory of democracy before it.

Pétain was a very French dictator, who got his absolute powers directly from the French parliament. Even if you say that the French government in exile in London was the legitimate one, it was not elected either.

I am not saying that the concept of ‘longest continuous democracy’ is very useful (I don’t think it is), but France did stop being a democracy for a few years.

Although there is an argument that the 3rd Republic did not end in 1940 (its constitution was not suspended or replaced until after the war), therefore the Vichy regime was illegitimate and thus should not count.

Oh. No. The French let it happen and democracy was no more.

Paris was occupied by Nazi germany. Yes. But the southern half of the country was not.

A military guy from ww1 took over and setup a government composed of French folks.

That the problematic part in my book.

It’s hard to Monday QB the rump part of a destroyed nation (quote from 0). I’m willing to give France a pass on democracy being interrupted during WWII. On the other hand, WWII marked the end of France’s “Third Republic” and the current constitution was established in 1958 (1). I don’t think it is fair to consider the current democracy the same as the one before WWII.

The official postwar French position was that Vichy was a German puppet state. Some historians have since the 1970s rejected that position by arguing, "Vichy had a political agenda of its own, which it pursued without the slightest pressure from Germany".[6] Germany kept two million French prisoners-of-war and imposed forced labour (service du travail obligatoire) on young French men. French soldiers were kept hostage to ensure that Vichy would reduce its military forces and pay a heavy tribute in gold, food and supplies to Germany.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France

Reply on news.ycombinator.com