Interesting work to qualified researchers, but with the developments that lend themselves to controversy

Alain Michel believes in "Vichy and the Holocaust," revised edition in 2015 that "the Vichy regime, although qu'antisémite and collaborator played a leading role in the factors that have slowed the implementation of the Final Solution in France and the result was the survival of 75% of the Jews who was in summer 1940 in the hexagon. " His approach is so, he said, questioning the work of a number of historians who have imposed since the 1980s a kind of orthodoxy about the role of Vichy. Clearly, the Vichy regime had a beneficial role for French Jews, at least until late 1943, so that there is a particular orthodoxy imposed by Robert Paxton, Michael Marrus, Serge Klarsfeld, and many other yet somehow the negative role of Vichy is due to a kind of "conspiracy" paxtono-klarsfeldien '

Early in the book, Alain Michel claims to be victim of a segregation of his historical work by the proponents of orthodoxy Paxtonian and indicates that on condition of anonymity, he received encouragement from a reputable historian colleague but do not wish to be quoted, probably for fear of terrible reprisals Robert Paxton at the age of 84, not counting Serge Klarsfeld to 73 years: at this level one wonders if there is not really a little paranoia.

Similarly, Alain Michel quotes at length the review of his book in the magazine's history: Alain Michel sees a terrible criticism intended to deter people from buying his book reading that you can make of this review will show you that There is nothing unusual, except perhaps for Alain Michel being placed in terms of the arguments the same level as Robert Aron, with the famous Vichy shield meant to protect all French I am small son of remote work, it's like this in 1942/1943 were referred to as the personnel required under STO: my grandfather managed to leave Germany and join a maquis in the southern area while he was wanted by the Gestapo. Both say right away that having lived all the misfortunes that hit the French in the wake of Vichy, my grandfather had little regard for those who saw something positive in the regime of the French State .

Note that Robert Paxton said in the new preface that his book (Vichy, 1997 edition) belonged to the historiography of his time, and that he would one day be replaced by new work. Paxton has never wanted to create a so-called orthodoxy as explained Alain Michel in his French paradox, moreover if this historian had actually read the book Paxton and Marrus published in 1981 "Vichy and the Jews," it would have been obliged to note that the authors write in long, wide and across, the Vichy regime always tried to protect the Jews of French nationality; they also state that Laval was not an anti-Semite, but used the question of foreign Jews in the context of broader negotiations with the German authorities, including Karl Oberg for the infamous Oberg / Bousquet agreements. Laval loses hand in 1943, with the gradual collapse of the policy of the French government, however, he and Petain opposed denaturalization Jews who had acquired French nationality since 1927.

Alain Michel recalls the considerable work of Raul Hilberg and Leon Poliakov to find a scientific legitimacy in a risky business that essentially repeats the arguments developed by the accused during the purification process between 1944 and 1947 on this subject there is a very interesting illustration in the biography by Laurent Joly devoted to far-right and anti-Semitic orator Catholic obedience Xavier Vallat (Laurent Joly "Xavier Vallat Christian nationalism to the state anti-Semitism 1891-1972" Grasset 2001), who was the first commissioner for Jewish affairs in the Vichy government shows the classic argument: according to the infamous Xavier Vallat "the government of the marshal has the right to justify the responsibilities he has taken on the Jewish question, of that thanks to its policy that 95% of French Jews are still alive "in an interview with one of two trial judges Vallat, Maurice Kriegel-Valtimont, Laurent Joly had the opportunity to gather magistrate of the view that "the argument is indecent: using dead which one is responsible, it is the height of self-justification of crime."

Because the main problem which is not overcome by Alain Michel is to explain how the two statutes of Jews adopted by Vichy and creating a powerful discrimination, spreading a large number of trades and functions and their thereby losing their livelihoods can be considered as a positive contribution to the Jewish question in France. In this regard, we note that the introduction by the president of CRIF Richard Prasquier that indicate very strongly "These findings do not mean that we should exempt Vichy morally. There was the status of Jews enacted on 3 October 1940 all spontaneity on the basis of a very independent and former anti-Semitic sentiment maurassien which the marshal had become a representative may be late but very convinced. "(')" There has been the abandonment of children by Laval, but he also had the terrible idea: foreign Jews had considered existential towards intruders that everything was justified' (') "The responsibility of Vichy is heavy, very heavy ('). "

In terms of anti-Jewish German policy, "it found the French Followers: French officials try to" justify "the status of 3 October 1940 as part of a sovereign policy aimed at ensuring" protection "to the Jews of French descent and anticipate the German measures. " "The law of Vichy not least creates the conditions for a parallelism with the German ordinance. She even seems to want to demonstrate as a higher degree of demand by attempting to make a definition of Jewish "race", that was not the German text. ' (Page 191 "Hitler and France" Perrin 2013) analysis of Jean-Pierre Cointet negated the effort of Alain Michel, who was trying to see in his earlier book "history of Vichy" to his bail arguments against the supposed orthodoxy.

Furthermore, the authors cited by Alain Michel, if we take the first Raul Hilberg, in the latest version of his book on "the destruction of the European Jews" 2006, states that "In France, the process of destruction of the Jews was the result of the Franco-German armistice. For the French authorities, who took the reins of government in June 1940 defeat was final, irrevocably lost the war. From 1940 to 1944 the uneven relationship between victor and vanquished off with a continuous stream of requirements of the pat Germans which one could hardly oppose. Among its requirements were the destruction of the Jews. "He goes on to say that" in its reactions to German pressure the Vichy government tried to keep the destruction process within certain limits. These were essentially intended to delay the evolution of the whole process. ('.) When German pressure intensified in 1942, the Vichy government entrenched behind a second line of defense. The foreign Jews, and immigrants were abandoned to their fate, and they tried to protect French Jews. To some extent, this successful strategy. By giving up a fraction save much we saved of all. " It was only possible to the extent that the Germans had needed the help of the French. "In any of the areas that we looked at so far the Germans depended as much of the local administration in France"; "He could throw (the Vichy government) the foundation of the destruction process through many pages of legislation and anti-Jewish regulations and should sometimes take initiatives that went beyond the German compulsion forced to do" and to continue "in 1940 the Vichy authorities émirent some anti-Jewish decrees which announced, although in a way still very unclear, triggering the destruction process". (') "The April 6, 1941 the Commissioner for Jewish Questions newly appointed Xavier Vallat, told the media representatives that there is no standard solution to the Jewish question in France. With regard to the Jews of North Africa, there was no Jewish problem at all. It should also, said Vallat, consider the old Jewish families from Alsace, mostly, who appeared to be assimilated. Another group was composed of outstanding soldiers who fought on the front in 1914-1918 and in 1940. But Eastern Jews who in recent years had invaded France, concluded Vallat, without understanding the scope his words should most likely be expelled again. "

Raul Hilberg also states that the Jews of North Africa were hard hit by a measure that it is not possible to attribute to the German occupation, the repeal of Decree Cremieux under which the Jews of Algeria enjoyed French citizenship since 1870. Then, they were struck by all the discrimination with the key and revocation Aryanization process in the business community: the notion of Aryanization is the term used to disguise outright plunder of the Jews, in which the General Commissariat for Jewish Questions (CGQJ: in this area there is a very good job from a university thesis of Laurent Joly, "Vichy in the Final solution: History of the Commissioner General questions Jewish ", Grasset, 2006) in France has sought to cut the grass under the feet of the German who had their own device: for the Vichy government, French Jews were to be deprived of their property by French profiteers (administrators with or provisional liquidation of enterprises). Well if this is not a measure of protection for Jews by the Vichy French, one wonders what it is !!!!. It is true that Alain Michel dismissed the problem of North Africa from his book field, ostensibly for reasons of space. Personally I think primarily it's a very embarrassing question than the denaturalization of its citizens by a country, and Mr Michel especially wanted to dismiss this thématique'Pour return to Hilberg, despite recognizing the protection of Jews French nationality, he does not make it less of Vichy and its administration an essential link in the process of destruction of the Jews in France.

What is true in fact, is that Pierre Laval played a rather positive role initially, after being informed by Knochen that the German government decided to deport all Jews, men, women and children residing in France, he indicated in Laval that he would not distinguish between French nationality Jews and others. Immediately Laval interfered with Karl Oberg and Oberg HSSPF was an intelligent man who proposed a compromise, if the French police guaranteed his collaboration, one stop (for now) that foreign and stateless Jews. Because in fact the Germans had dire need of French police who were ruthlessly efficient. Laval's position is deteriorating in 1942 when the Germans demand the deportation of 50,000 Jews in the southern zone. Laval then says ready to deliver the foreign Jews from the unoccupied zone and suggested that the Germans also benefit to take children under the age of 16 years and according to Hilberg jubilant Nazis' At the practical cooperation of police forces French was negotiated through several agreements between René Bousquet and Karl Oberg.

Needless to go into details of the various raids carried out on French territory, literature is abundant and people can no longer claim to disregard its tragic aspects of French history.

Raul Hilberg provides a quantitative assessment of the joint action of the German and Vichy on "final solution": "the place of destination of the deportees was mainly Auschwitz who received 70,000, over 3000 Sobibor, Lublin (Majdanek) and Kaunas less than 1,000 each, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen about 400 each. A little less than 3,000 survived. More than 3,000 Jews died on French soil. Approximately 2,500 of these deaths occurred within the camps (which Vichy had also inherited from the Third Republic in essence), including Gurs. Another thousand Jews were shot, some as hostages. Moreover, outside of the French network of camps and in North Africa, was recorded deaths due to privations and suicides. "(Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, tome 2, folio history, 2006 edition.
So if Hilberg, admits some protection for Jews of French nationality, protection as a percentage of around 75%, it is nevertheless true that Vichy was one of the key links in the persecution of Jews and the deportation of foreigners and stateless Jews. It shows that we are very far from a positive assessment of the role of the French state.

Moreover, this historic present a detailed and explicit in the MM Paxton and Marrus book published in 1981 "Vichy and the Jews": both authors admit though a differentiated policy between Jews and foreigners French Jews who were protected by Vichy, even though as noted Alain Michel himself it was an anti-Semitic regime.

Alain Michel rejects incredible strength the work of Robert Paxton, while the result is the same, except that Robert Paxton, Michael Marrus, Serge Klarsfeld believe that Vichy was a morally reprehensible and criminal regime which has contributed in one way active and proactive in the deportation of foreign Jews in France.

Alain Michel willingly adopts a belligerent tone against the work of Serge Klarsfeld, even as he heavily relies on the work of this major author in his book that can understand! He seems to want to particularly remarkable "Vichy-Auschwitz," and we feel that the settlement account between the two men is not just in my humble opinion of an academic nature.

Furthermore, Alain Michel said repeatedly that the police and the French authorities were obliged to cooperate with the German authorities for the organization and conduct raids in the northern zone as in the southern zone: technically it is absolutely false, the the 1907 Hague Convention amended in 1930 do not create obligations of collaboration to commit what is ultimately a crime here is the summary of the obligations of the occupying power in relation to the above texts:

The obligations of the occupying power are set out in the rules of the 1907 Hague Convention (Art. 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, Art. 27-34 and 47-78) as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law
The agreements between the occupying power and the local authorities can not deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, Art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no case renounce their rights (GC IV, Art. 8).

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:
'The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
'The occupation is a temporary situation and rights of the occupant are limited to the duration of this period.
'The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they are a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of international law of occupation.
'The occupying power must take measures to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and public safety.
'To the best of its ability, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring satisfactory conditions of hygiene and public health, and to supply the population under occupation provisions and provide the necessary medical care.
'Civilians living in occupied territory can not be forced into the armed forces of the occupant.
'Forcible transfers of civilians, individual or mass, inside or outside of the occupied territory are prohibited.
'The transfer of civilians from the occupying power in the occupied territory, whether forced or voluntary, are prohibited.
'Collective punishment is prohibited.
'The taking of hostages is prohibited.
'Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
'The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.

It is obvious that the armistice of 1940 and the various measures of the occupying power were violations of these principles, but more importantly, the participation of the police and gendarmerie to French raids leading to actions deportations of foreign Jews elements were freely made by the French Vichy government and the almost total level of cooperation offered by France to the roundup and deportation of foreign Jews, Alain Michel is unable to refute the level of compromise of Vichy authorities set highlighted by Robert Paxton.

However, Petain and Laval carries the moral and criminal responsibility to have given instructions to the French police to be used for the completion of major raids carried out in France: the toll remains terrible with 75,000 men, women and children deported.
This should not hide that close to 140,000 people were deported in all, including resistance to the German occupation. Of the 40,000 survivors of German concentration camps, only 2,500 Jews survived.

Moreover, if the fact of sacrificing stateless or foreign Jews, instead of French Jews may seem in the eyes of Mr. Michel a protection strategy of the French government, it is difficult or even impossible not pronounce an implacable moral condemnation, what is done elsewhere in the introduction written by the president of CRIF and reiterated several times by Alain Michel, we must recognize the take all precautions not to rehabilitate Vichy. However, his argument arouses deep unease because it is likely to be recovered by some right-wing extremists, who are in no academics or researchers, who might have to argue that the life of foreign is worth less than the life of a French, in addition to using Alain Michel work of a misguided way to boost the image of Petain.

Finally, the ultimate limit is exceeded on page 285 or dares to write that "(') Free France in London that the ethically had a much more positive attitude than that of Vichy and its administration had in terms of the rescue of Jews from France absolutely zero results. (') "By participating in the arrest and deportation of stateless and foreign Jews, Laval, Bousquet and their close associates were involved in a crime. But their intention to "take advantage" to save French Jews was she worth mitigating circumstance? ('). It indicates of course that the historian does not settle the questions of good and evil, but only shows the facts. Ethically, it is a statement that should probably be qualified.

For memory devices discriminatory making Algeria against local Jews, French citizens were taken by men of Vichy, and discrimination continued until General Giraud, one of the faithful of the Pétain National Revolution departed from any political function, then this is Charles de Gaulle via the CFLN reinstated the Cremieux decree October 20, 1943.