While it is perhaps all too convenient to find one or two persons to take the blame for the horrifically anti-semitic actions of the French Vichy government, I do nevertheless think a large part of the responsibility resides solely with Marshal Pétain. When Germany invaded France in 1940 Petain, aged 84, was made Deputy Prime Minister (a big promotion upwards from his then position of retirement coupled with the sinecure of being France's Ambassador to Spain). In the chaos following the fall of France the Prime Minister Paul Reynaud resigned (17 June 1940), recommending to President Lebrun that he appoint Marshal Pétain in his place, which he did that day. Now, as Head of Government, Pétain called an emergency meeting of the French Chamber of Deputies and the French Senate for 10 July, to be held in the spa town of Vichy since Paris and most of northern France was now occupied by the Germans. At this meeting he and his cabinet managed to sway the vote for a series of extreme but 'necessary' constitutional reforms that effectively ended the Third Republic. The matters enacted were nearly all political: they did nothing to address the very pressing situation arising from the Fall of France nor the immediate plight of her population. Nearly all French historians, as well as all postwar French governments, consider this vote to have been illegal as not only were many deputies and senators not present but the 'reforms' went against the standing constitution. Admittedly these were very difficult times but Pétain's actions were still effectively a coup d'état: he saw his chance and he took it. The next day Pétain assumed near-absolute powers as Head of State in addition to already being Head of Government.

By January 1941 Pétain held virtually all governing power in France with nearly all legislative, executive and judicial powers being in his hands and so he was effectively able to rule France simply by personal decree. He favoured an authoritarian, paternalist, conservative society, run along strict military lines, and his new government immediately used its new powers to impose harsh measures, including strict censorship and control of the press, the dismissal of republican civil servants, the suspension of democratic elections, the imprisonment of government opponents, the imprisonment of foreign refugees, and yes, the proclamation of severe anti-Jewish laws. Although he formally maintained the state of war with Germany, he gave little significant resistance to requests by the Germans to indirectly aid the Axis Powers. Then following the British attacks on Mers el Kébir and Dakar, the Vichy government become increasingly fearful of the British, and Pétain's government became even more collaborationist. It acquiesced to the Axis forces' demands for large supplies of manufactured goods and foodstuffs, as well as ordering French troops in France's colonial empire to defend sovereign French territory against any aggressors, Allied or otherwise. In all this he no doubt had convinced himself, and a large part of the population, that such actions, although onerous, were necessary in order to preserve the political entity and culture of France, or at least what remained of it.

Following the liberation of France on 7 September 1944, Pétain and other members of the French cabinet at Vichy were relocated by the Nazis to 'secure' premises within Germany, where they became a symbolic government-in-exile until April 1945. Then in July 1945, with Germany's defeat, the new French provisional government headed by de Gaulle placed Pétain on trial for treason. He was convicted by the jury (perhaps symbolically on a majority of one) of all charges and was duly sentenced to death. However due to his advanced age the court asked that the sentence not be carried out and de Gaulle commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. After his conviction the court also stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honours save for the one distinction of Marshal of France (probably to demonstrate that the ultimate responsibility was his alone). Pétain was imprisoned in France but by 1949 it was clear that he was suffering from dementia. In his final years there were several, protracted, moves to have him released and transferred to a private residence. He died on 23 July 1951 at the age of 95.

It is easy and perhaps convenient to lay culpability for the shameful actions of Vichy France squarely onto Pétain and his colleagues, and as I've described above I do think he must take the largest share of responsibility. However it should also be remembered that he was then already well into his 80s having been born in 1856. He was above all a product of his 19th century military background and education, enhanced by his undoubted reputation as a military hero in WW1.

In the late 19th century anti-semitism had been rife in the French army, with matters coming to a head with the Dreyfus affair. Dreyfus was a well-regarded captain in the French army who had in 1894 been (falsely and maliciously) convicted of treason by a military court, at which time Philippe Pétain was a similarly-aged captain and aspiring officer in the French army (in 1894 Drefus was 35, Pétain 38). By the time Dreyfus's conviction had finally been overturned by a civil court and he had been pardoned by the President - some years later - Pétain had attained the rank of major. I think it is safe to assume that Pétain, already rising rapidly through the ranks, was typical of the officer class at the time. I can easily see that Pétain would have been less concerned about discovering truth and fairness in matters such as the Dreyfuss affair, than in defending the honour of the French Army. This sort of attitude, combined with his military conservatism and authoritarianism, plus a personal devout Catholicism, certainly seems to have carried him as he got older, from casual in-grained institutional prejudice into active anti-semitism.

In 1940, when Pétain took over France in his coup d'état, he was an 84 year-old, much-feted war veteran and national hero (albeit from actions he'd taken over two decades previously). Accordingly he probably believed completely and sincerely in his own abilities, and so had very few doubts that what he was doing was for the good of France. As with several other dictators who were around at that time, once he'd got his feet under the table, silenced any opposition, installed yes-men all around him, and cozied up to other like-minded tyrannical regimes, it was then very difficult to get rid of him.

Meles meles wrote:

Although he formally maintained the state of war with Germany, he gave little significant resistance to requests by the Germans to indirectly aid the Axis Powers. Then following the British attacks on Mers el Kébir and Dakar, the Vichy government become increasingly fearful of the British, and Pétain's government became even more collaborationist. It acquiesced to the Axis forces' demands for large supplies of manufactured goods and foodstuffs, as well as ordering French troops in France's colonial empire to defend sovereign French territory against any aggressors, Allied or otherwise. In all this he no doubt had convinced himself, and a large part of the population, that such actions, although onerous, were necessary in order to preserve the political entity and culture of France, or at least what remained of it.

That’s fascinating Meles. I hadn’t appreciated that Vichy France remained officially at war with Germany despite the 1940 armistice. The workings of international law can sometimes be very strange. Neither was it just Vichy France which was mistrustful of the British. In his memoirs Les chemins de l'aventure - Le temps des armes published in 1972, Pierre Billotte chief of staff to General Charles de Gaulle, says that on hearing of the Torch landings de Gaulle immediately exclaimed:

"Eh bien, j’espère que ces gens de Vichy vont les jeter à la mer. On ne pénètre pas en France par effraction!"

“Well, I hope that those Vichy lads throw them back into the sea. One doesn’t just break into France!”
 
The Torch landings took place on 8 November 1942 more than 2 years after the attack on Dakar. Unlike Dakar, in which the Gaullist French and the British has been repulsed, the American-led Torch landings in Morocco and Algeria were a resounding success. Indeed, de Gaulle had been kept completely in the dark about the operation by the Americans and the British. De Gaulle’s reaction and surprise on hearing the news is indicative of his feeing of injured pride both personally and as a Frenchman.
 


(A Vichy French cartoon taunting the British following their repulse at Dakar in September 1940 – “You won’t catch anything with that de Gaulle there.”)

After having regained his composure, however, de Gaulle made a broadcast on the BBC calling on his compatriots in North Africa to support the Allies. This resulted in Vichy naval chief and former prime minister Admiral Francois Darlan doing just that. Darlan declared for the Allies and appointed himself commander of all French forces in North and West Africa. The fact that Darlan had just happened to arrive in Algiers (ostensibly to visit his son in hospital) only the day before the Torch landings took place and the fact that the Allies were then quick to recognise him as commander of all French forces in that theatre convinced de Gaulle that Darlan had been in negotiation with the British and the Americans all along and that he (de Gaulle) had again been kept out of the loop and played for a fool.

Interesting cartoon, firstly, in light of the OP because of the cartoon-villain portrayal of the Jewish banker cowering behind Churchill, and secondly because of the prominence of the French battleship Richelieu, then in Dakar (French West Africa). Richelieu was a powerful warship which could have been a great threat to allied shipping, but following repeated British attacks that had been intended to either compel the ship to join the Free French Naval Forces or sink her (July and September 1940) she was so badly damaged that she couldn't actually leave port, although it took until October before British Naval intelligence realised this. Repairs continued for months but she only left Dakar once Darlan had turned all French African possessions over to Free French control following the Allied invasion of North Africa in November 1942. Now as a Free French ship Richelieu limped across the Atlantic to the US to complete repairs and be modified to bring her up to modern standards (although the US balked at fitting her with the latest, highly-sensitive, radar equipment). She subsequently served, with a French crew, as part of the British Home Fleet and then with the British Fleet in the Far East.


Richelieu arrives in New York, 1 January 1943. NB the obvious damage to the second main battery turret.

aiui Richelieu was second choice - Littorio was first, but her lack of range lead to a rethink.

Green George wrote:

aiui Richelieu was second choice - Littorio was first, but her lack of range lead to a rethink.

What? That's just a load of gibberish. Whatever are you trying to say?

The Itaian battleship Littorio was considered a better warship than Richelieu, but, in common with most Italian warships, she was too short-ranged for the Pacific having been built with Mediterranean distances in mind.

Oh I see (sorry gibberish was a bit harsh) ... I was confused because Littorio was Italian (ie an axis vessel), or I thought you might be referring to the Richelieu, after refit in the US originally being deployed to the Mediterranean to counter Littorio, amongst other things, only for Italy to have surrendered before she got there. Hence Littorio would then indeed have been available to the allies - only she got badly bombed by the Germans while heading for internment in Malta. Also Richelieu was a much better-looking ship, imho.

Meles meles wrote:

the prominence of the French battleship Richelieu, then in Dakar (French West Africa).

Good observation. The very name of Richelieu would also have had resonance. Cardinal Armand du Plessis, Duke of Richelieu was First Minister under King Louis XIII during the Thirty Years War when France had felt surrounded by the Habsburgs who ruled Germany and Spain. A short-lived alliance with England had fallen apart and the outlook from Paris was bleak. Richelieu, however, skilfully exploited the rivalry between the Spanish and Austrian wings of the Habsburg dynasty and drove a diplomatic wedge between them. And as Grand Master of the Navigation (another of his many titles), he oversaw the build-up of French naval forces including masterminding the repulse of the English at La Rochelle in 1628 which saw England withdraw from the conflict. The parallels with the situation in 1940 would have been evident.

Meles meles wrote:

Oh I see (sorry gibberish was a bit harsh) ... I was confused because Littorio was Italian (ie an axis vessel), or I thought you might be referring to the Richelieu, after refit in the US originally being deployed to the Mediterranean to counter Littorio, amongst other things, only for Italy to have surrendered before she got there. Hence Littorio would then indeed have been available to the allies - only she got badly bombed by the Germans while heading for internment in Malta. Also Richelieu was a much better-looking ship, imho.

Correction. Not Littorio (renamed Italia by then) but her sister Vittoria Veneto. The Italian vessels were better protected, had a better aa armament and the main guns were longer ranged and more logically arranged, despite the undoubted elegance of the Richelieu class.

Something that I was unaware of but that has cropped up during reporting of the current French Presidential elections, is that the French far-right monarchist political movement, Action française, is still in existence. This was formed in 1899 as a nationalist reaction against the intervention of left-wing intellectuals on behalf of Alfred Dreyfus, the Jewish army officer falsely accused of treason (who I've already mentioned above in relation to Marshal Pétain's anti-Jewish attitude). Action française, or in full Centre royaliste d'Action française, is still politically active although it now sees itself more as a think-tank than as a political party. It currently stands for a traditional, hereditary, anti-parliamentary and decentralized monarchy, with its guiding principals founded on 'family values' (so no abortion, no same-sex marriage, no adoption of children by homosexuals, no surrogate motherhood nor any IVF) and is strongly anti-European Union - hence in the current elections it has voiced its general support for Marine Le Pen.

While its current membership is only a few thousands, in the past Action française was very much more influential in French politics and for many decades it produced its own daily national newspaper (of the same name) which had a large circulation. It was perhaps at its most prominent during the inter-war period, firstly immediately after WW1 because of its popular firm stance in demanding German reparations and full compliance with other peace terms, and then later in the 1930s because of its right-wing stance as increasing numbers of people in France (as in Europe as a whole) turned to authoritarian political movements largely in response to the failures in government financial policies and actions.

France between the wars was certainly very deeply divided. Political factions clashed, often violently in the streets, and political alliances constantly altered, formed and broke. Meanwhile governments came and went, with some lasting just a few days, others barely hours, and only rarely did a government last a full year. On the very day that Hitler came to power France was without a government and it was again without one when his troops marched into Austria. The Left was more concerned about addressing social ills and in rooting out corruption in high places, while the Right so hated the Left that they were prepared to countenance dictatorship to get a strong government. As in Germany and Italy, but also Britain and the US, there were many of the French 'possessing' classes - from simple shopkeepers, farmers and home-owners who owned their premises rather than just renting them, up to major industrialists, bankers and the owners of big businesses - that openly admired Hitler.

These deep divisions hampered France when Germany invaded Poland and again eight months later when France itself was invaded. It is against this background that, following France's capitulation, Pétain formed his collaborationist Vichy government. He staged a military coup over-throwing the legitimate government and assumed the powers of dictator, but there were many who actually supported his move, at least initially. Action française threw its support behind Pétain and his Vichy government and physically followed his government by moving their headquarters and printworks from Nazi-controlled Paris down to Vichy (meanwhile its more Royalist members earnestly hoped that Pétain would restore the monarchy but in that they were to be disappointed). Following France's Liberation the group's newspaper was promptly closed down and its leading figures imprisoned by the re-established French republic. The movement nevertheless reformed and continued in new publications and political associations, although with fading relevance as monarchism lost popularity and French far-right movements, such as the Le Pens' (father and daughter) National Front (FN) party, have shifted toward an emphasis on Catholic values and defence of classical French culture.

However going back to the original post, it should be noted that the form of fascism promoted by the Vichy Government was, I think, largely a home-grown French creation, based on the pro-establishment and anti-Jewish backlash against the intervention of left-wing intellectuals on behalf of Alfred Dreyfus in the early 1900s. Indeed ultimately it has roots in eighteenth-century monarchist, anti-revolutionary France. Accordingly it's rather distinct from Germany's National Socialism of the 1930s.