Was there a civil war or similar situation in France in WW2 during Nazi occupation?

[rogg]

Same happened here -

Tbh the diabolization of the Nazi regime and it's associated anti-semitism happened *after* the war.

Before WWII it was nothing special, lot's of people simply sympathized or agreed with the nationalist ideology - specifically when it came in the form of anti-bolshevism often endorsed by the institutional catholic church.

In fact it was precisely the fact many people regarded them as a bastion against communism that lend the Nazis widespread (financial) support in the pre-war years and allowed H. to rise to power.

Anti-semitism likewise - had been wide-spread in Europe since the middle-ages, the Nazis did not invent or import it, they capitalized on it.

Yes.

During this period, there existed a european movement of right wing / fascist groups.

There was this ideal of the western "people" fighting against the threat from the east - bolshevism.

You will find in every country people/parties in europe, which did support the Nazi politics and did share their attitudes.
Leon Degrelle from Belgium is probably the best known example.
So these people often did fight in the German forces because they thought they were part of gigantic struggle against communism ... which led them to betray their fatherland.

Maybe you could compare it to the internationalism of the communist ideology, which also played a major part during this time...

For example the LVF in France:





Belgium:



Denmark:

[Michele]

Originally Posted by rogg

During this period, there existed a european movement of right wing / fascist groups.

There was this ideal of the western "people" fighting against the threat from the east - bolshevism.

Frankly I doubt the word "movement" is appropriate. There was a recruitment drive, yes.

For comparison's sake, the Comintern managed to send in Spain, to fight against the Fascists, men coming from democratic countries. Men who had a choice.
The similar and opposite attempt to send true pro-Fascist volunteers to Spain produced anemic effects; the pro-fascist "volunteers" in Spain were actually soldiers and militiamen sent there by their Fascist governments.

Conversely, the Nazis managed to recruit lots of foreign volunteers later on - from countries that they occupied militarily, however, or from countries that were Fascist dictatorships. They bagged very meager numbers of volunteers from free places like Sweden or Turkey or Switzerland.

[rogg]

Originally Posted by Michele

Frankly I doubt the word "movement" is appropriate. There was a recruitment drive, yes.

For comparison's sake, the Comintern managed to send in Spain, to fight against the Fascists, men coming from democratic countries. Men who had a choice.
The similar and opposite attempt to send true pro-Fascist volunteers to Spain produced anemic effects; the pro-fascist "volunteers" in Spain were actually soldiers and militiamen sent there by their Fascist governments.

Conversely, the Nazis managed to recruit lots of foreign volunteers later on - from countries that they occupied militarily, however, or from countries that were Fascist dictatorships. They bagged very meager numbers of volunteers from free places like Sweden or Turkey or Switzerland.

There existed in nearly every country during this time fascist groups which did share a common believe in race superiority, the fight against the "asian" hordes and so on.. From Mussert in the Netherlands, Mosley in GB, Italy of course, the "Pfeilkreuzler" in Hungary etc. Sure, there were certain differences concerning the role of the nation and so on, however in general they saw it as a gigantic struggle against bloshevism, which is in my opinionen a certain internationalism. The communists thought about classes, the facsists about races...

As you say, there was not much support for them, however, they existed and cooperated...

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by rogg

There existed in nearly every country during this time fascist groups which did share a common believe in race superiority, the fight against the "asian" hordes and so on.. From Mussert in the Netherlands, Mosley in GB, Italy of course, the "Pfeilkreuzler" in Hungary etc. Sure, there were certain differences concerning the role of the nation and so on, however in general they saw it as a gigantic struggle against bloshevism, which is in my opinionen a certain internationalism. The communists thought about classes, the facsists about races...

As you say, there was not much support for them, however, they existed and cooperated...

And in GB were jailed as well! Oswald Mosley was a ratbag of the first order his uniformed followers were made up of (to a great part) ex convicts and thugs in general armed with 'Knuckle dusters' and 'Blackjacks', at his meetings they stood in front of him and mingled with the crowd,anyone that vocally disagreed with him was beaten into silence.He was a disgusting nobody that thought he had found a way of being a somebody,then discovered too late how wrong he was. lcm1

[clackers]

Originally Posted by lcm1

Oswald Mosley was a ratbag of the first order

Pretty much what politician Jennie Lee thought of him, Lcm1:

""He (Mosley) had a fatal flaw in his character, on overwhelming arrogance and an unshakable conviction that he was born to rule, drove him on to the criminal folly of donning a black shirt and surrounding himself with a band of bullyboys, and so becoming a pathetic imitation Hitler, doomed to political impotence for the rest of his life.""

[Michele]

Originally Posted by rogg

There existed in nearly every country during this time fascist groups which did share a common believe in race superiority, the fight against the "asian" hordes and so on.. From Mussert in the Netherlands, Mosley in GB, Italy of course, the "Pfeilkreuzler" in Hungary etc. Sure, there were certain differences concerning the role of the nation and so on, however in general they saw it as a gigantic struggle against bloshevism, which is in my opinionen a certain internationalism. The communists thought about classes, the facsists about races...

As you say, there was not much support for them, however, they existed and cooperated...

Saying that there were national Fascist movements in various countries is one thing, and I won't object to that. Saying that there was a common European movement for Fascism that was spontaneous and free (i.e. not commanded by Nazi occupiers), and that its various national parts cooperated, is what I object to.

Consider this: Communism is by nature internationalistic, and "workers of the world should unite".
Fascism OTOH is nationalistic, and rabidly so. There were Fascist-like parties in France and Poland in 1939, do you think they cooperated with the Nazis? Hell no. Or think about the Romanian Legion of St. Michael. The Nazis supported it for a time, even sending them small arms. Then when push came to shove, the Nazis were supporting the Romanian King's government, and dumped the Legion. The Greeks were governed by a Fascist-like party, can you say they cooperated with the Italians or the Germans?

Naturally, things changed once the Germans were in charge. Then the French or Greek or Dutch extreme-right-wingers had little choice. At least the winner was to their political liking, and in the defeat of their country, they could snatch the victory of their political side.
But until the Heer broke the backbone of the Armée, the French who were called traitors were the Communists (because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), and the name-callers were the French right wingers, who considered themselves patriots and therefore enemies of anything German.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by clackers

Pretty much what politician Jennie Lee thought of him, Lcm1:

""He (Mosley) had a fatal flaw in his character, on overwhelming arrogance and an unshakable conviction that he was born to rule, drove him on to the criminal folly of donning a black shirt and surrounding himself with a band of bullyboys, and so becoming a pathetic imitation Hitler, doomed to political impotence for the rest of his life.""

Hi clack, yes he is a memory from the past that makes my blood boil,just at the thought and it boils even more when i am aware that there are people at this present time that think such a person was accepted in GB during the thirties. lcm1

[lirelou]

Michele, I think both you and Rogg have some good points.

Communism was an international movement, but was directed by the Comintern in the pre-WWII days. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is what cost the American Communist Party much of its membership.

But Nationalist parties too recognized common goals and traits. Ergo Hitler and Mussolini's support from Franco. So the Fascists were capable of international cooperation.

The real list test for me is whether the average occupied French ultra-nationalist would cooperate with the Nazis in tasks like hunting down and deporting Jews. The overwhelming evidence is that many did. But many is not all, and there were those on the French right who would do anything to bring Germany's defeat, except cooperate with Vichy. Those who did cooperate were traitors, however succesfully theyhave managed to obscure that fact.

Their hypocrisy was no different from those on the extreme left, and again many but not all, who kept hoping for the day that the USSR would liberate France.

I keep wondering who betrayed Jean Moulin, and suspect that Barbie was telling the truth (the Aubracs). So, if civil war per se did not erupt during WWII, it was certainly percolating below the surface. The previous decades had lain the grounds for such a civil war prior to WWII, and the political climate that could have erupted in one existed for a bit more than a decade after.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by lirelou

Michele, I think both you and Rogg have some good points.

Communism was an international movement, but was directed by the Comintern in the pre-WWII days. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is what cost the American Communist Party much of its membership.

But Nationalist parties too recognized common goals and traits. Ergo Hitler and Mussolini's support from Franco. So the Fascists were capable of international cooperation.

I never claimed they were incapable. What I said, and still maintain, is that as a matter of principle, Communist movements should cooperate, while Nationalist movements should not. Nationalism per se means my country comes first and I don't care about yours. Communism per se means we proletarians always have a common enemy, regardless of where we live, and thus we are always natural allies.

Then, by way of exception, Fascists of different countries could cooperate occasionally - insofar as and until they had no conflicting interests and preferably a common interest, maybe a common enemy, rather than a common border.

[rogg]

Originally Posted by Michele

I never claimed they were incapable. What I said, and still maintain, is that as a matter of principle, Communist movements should cooperate, while Nationalist movements should not. Nationalism per se means my country comes first and I don't care about yours. Communism per se means we proletarians always have a common enemy, regardless of where we live, and thus we are always natural allies.

Then, by way of exception, Fascists of different countries could cooperate occasionally - insofar as and until they had no conflicting interests and preferably a common interest, maybe a common enemy, rather than a common border.

You are right about the nationalistic groups, their goals did not allow a cooperation between the states per definition. I just wanted to point out, that during this time there existed a mythology/ideology with esoteric and heathen "ingredients" which had in some cases a post-nationalistic perspective about race etc. Not all ultra nationalists shared this believe, but some did.