France’s Darkest Verdict Unpacked

Was He France’s Savior or Its Betrayer? A Look at Julian Jackson’s France on Trial

The Case of Marshal Petain dives deep into one of the most painful and complicated chapters in modern French history the trial of Marshal Philippe Pétain for treason after World War II. It’s a book that doesn’t offer easy answers, but it certainly forces readers to wrestle with the right questions.

Setting the Stage: France in Crisis

In the summer of 1940, Nazi Germany steamrolled into France. In the aftermath, an armistice was signed. The Germans occupied the northern two-thirds of the country while a reduced French government retained nominal control of the southern region. This government, led by none other than World War I hero Marshal Petain, relocated its seat to Vichy giving rise to the now-infamous “Vichy France.”

Two key legal facts frame what followed:

1. Continuity: Despite the occupation, this was still legally the French government. Officials stayed in place. The machinery of the state kept operating.

2. POW Leverage: Because it was technically an armistice, Germany wasn’t obliged to return French prisoners of war, and they used them as bargaining chips for years.

Petain promoted a policy of “collaboration” with the Nazis—a term he reportedly coined himself. His defenders claimed this was pragmatism, not betrayal. The goal? To minimize suffering and maintain some semblance of sovereignty. Even openly pro-German actions—like firing on Allied troops during the North Africa landings or hoping the D-Day invasion failed—were, according to this logic, regrettable necessities.

A Trial That Raised More Questions Than It Answered

After the war, Petain was tried for treason, the central focus of Jackson’s book. But here’s the rub: what exactly was his crime?

• Signing the armistice? Many in the military and government at the time believed it was the only way to avoid total destruction.

• Grabbing power? He didn’t. He was legally appointed through proper channels.

• Collaborating with Germany? Many believed it was the least bad option to preserve what was left of France.

• Suppressing the Resistance? Vichy authorities treated Resistance fighters as domestic terrorists, damaging infrastructure and killing soldiers.

• Ignoring de Gaulle? Why should Petain answer to an exiled colonel rather than remain loyal to the sitting government?

The legal and moral lines were anything but clear. Who had the right to judge him, when almost every potential juror or attorney had either served under Vichy or under the disgraced prewar Third Republic? These weren’t just philosophical puzzles; they were national wounds, many still unhealed decades later.

Jackson’s narrative reminds readers of France’s long and uneasy relationship with its wartime past. Shows like The Village and documentaries like Hotel Terminus echo these themes across generations.

A Missed Opportunity?

With an all-star witness list—basically a roll call of every major French political figure of the era one might expect fireworks in the courtroom. But much of the trial devolved into finger-pointing, with witnesses trying to shift blame rather than seek truth. Meanwhile, Petain’s own defense team advised him to say nothing. So he did. As a result, the man at the center of it all remained largely silent, an unreadable figure while the country judged his fate.

That silence may have made legal sense, but it left a gaping hole in the emotional core of the trial. Jackson can’t be faulted for that it’s history. But it does leave readers wanting more than the book can give.

Final Thoughts: Thought-Provoking, Not Clarifying

This book lingers in the mind—not because it offers clarity, but because it refuses to simplify. The questions Jackson raises about loyalty, survival, authority, and justice are ones that France, and maybe the rest of us, are still struggling to answer.

One of the most cutting observations comes from journalist and Auschwitz survivor Madeleine Jacob, who covered the trial and described Petain’s defense strategy like this:

“When a criminal kills someone and argues that his intentions were pure, he is executed. Petain killed France while sighing.”

That quote lands like a punch and sums up the emotional core of France on Trial. Whether you view Petain as a traitor or a tragic pragmatist, this book challenges you to grapple with the uncomfortable in-between. And in doing so, it tells a bigger story about a nation trying to judge itself.