Those would fall in “Exonumia > military vouchers” dont you think?
From articles I read, they were military payment certificates
Absolutely not. These were issued by the invading Allies for general circulation. De Gaulle wasn't happy and had them withdrawn from circulation as soon as he could but they did circulate for a time as regular money. Perhaps you could share links to these articles?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Given that De Gaulle had already established the Provisional Government of the French Republic, that should be the ruling authority. He didn't like the notes because he didn't want anyone but his government issuing money.
It seems to me that “Allied military” is the best term for the issuing entity (issuing bank as the field is actually called) since they bear no name for the issuer but were undoubtable issued by the US, UK, Canadian and other invading forces. The French version of Numista has Gouvernement militaire allié des territoires occupés for the free text issuing entity field but that is a complete invention with no historical basis and has been appied to the 1945 issues which, though similar in design, were issued by the French Treasury. This will need fixing once we have agreed on the best name for the issuer of the 1944 notes.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
This link seems to converge with what I understood at first, meaning these notes were used as military vouchers (for soldiers to buy things in Normandy) only for a few weeks
I understand the difference, and I may be wrong, but given the testimony I wonder if, in fact, those notes were not only used de facto as military payment certificates (meaning only military get paid this way, meaning those went into circulation only through military purchases):
“The size of the smaller denominations (2, 5 and 10 francs) was 3 by 2.625 inches. I just measured the note that was paid me just before the invasion. The inscription reads émis en France rather than France, République Française or Banque de France. According to Pick's catalog, these notes were printed in the US. I don't recall actually spending any during the Normandy campaign (I was busy with other matters). When I next received pay in francs (at the end of January), I was paid with Banque de France notes. I'm not certain, but I don't think I saw any of the invasion francs when I was in France from late January to early April and August 1945. Rather similar German notes were issued by the allies from 1944 to 1948 with the inscriptions Allierte Militärbehörde (Allied Military Authority) and Im Umlauf Gesetzt in Deutschland (Circulated in Germany). These were denominated in marks, rather than Reichsmarks or German Marks. Incidentally, the currency used by allied troops on late 1944 and early 1945 in Belgium, Luxemburg and the Netherlands (I received pay in these too), though printed in the US, had the appearance of European notes, were fully authorized by their respective governments, had the standard warnings against counterfeiting the standard notations, etc. It is of course easy to see why Germany was different, but the question of France seems to reflect the lack of good relations between Roosevelt (and his advisors) and the Free French government.”
Yes, that's the important point. These drappeau notes weren't in use for very long because of De Gaulle's opposition but, during their circulation, they were used outside of the military.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
These drappeau notes weren't in use for very long because of De Gaulle's opposition but, during their circulation, they were used outside of the military.
I understand that, but if only military payments are the source of this circulation, couldn't we consider those notes were some kind of vouchers? They circulated outside the military because shop owners who were paid this way had to do something with, but they were not distributed to normal people through banking system for instance, right?
It gives the date of the 15th of June 1945 for the 50 francs and higher but 1/1/2004 for the lowest three denominations. Their method of introduction may have been unusual but the Banque de France recognized them as currency for at least a year.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
It gives the date of the 15th of June 1945 for the 50 francs and higher but 1/1/2004 for the lowest three denominations. Their method of introduction may have been unusual but the Banque de France recognized them as currency for at least a year.
Sorry I do not understand what you need ? Issuing entities can be added in any entry whenever you want, you can just type in the field the wording you chose :-)
It needs to be added to the list of “banks”, even though it's not a bank (like HM Treasury on this note). This confusion over the two fields really needs resolving.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
It needs to be added to the list of “banks”, even though it's not a bank (like HM Treasury on this note). This confusion over the two fields really needs resolving.
but as you said it is not a bank or financial institution, so “issuing entity” seems to be the right field, don't you think?
If you look at the example, this is shown as an “Issuing entity”, so it works as you want. Why we have two fields that can both show as “issuing entity” beats me.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Sorry, this isn't what I'm requesting. The “Allied Military Government of Occupied Territories” never existed in France. We just need “Allied Military”. I don't get what you're trying to achieve by changing “issuer” to “location”.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Sorry, this isn't what I'm requesting. The “Allied Military Government of Occupied Territories” never existed in France. We just need “Allied Military”. I don't get what you're trying to achieve by changing “issuer” to “location”.
It is not because they didn't existed that they couldn't have issued money at a time they didn't know what would be the government form in France. It was Xavier's rationale when he added recently AMGOT as the issuing entity on these notes (see french version of these entries) cf also here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouvernement_militaire_alli%C3%A9_des_territoires_occup%C3%A9s
That reasoning falls down because the Provisional Government of the French Republic was declared three days before D-Day (see here). It's true that the notes were prepared under the assumption that there would be an occupation administration but, since it never happened, we shouldn't be listing an entity that never existed as an issuer.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
That reasoning falls down because the Provisional Government of the French Republic was declared three days before D-Day (see here). It's true that the notes were prepared under the assumption that there would be an occupation administration but, since it never happened, we shouldn't be listing an entity that never existed as an issuer.
I'm not convinced it is better to list a generic name of issuing entity which never existed too :-)
At the time these notes were created, the issuing entity was AMGOT from my understanding. Why they were distributed (apparently for a very limited space and time) despite refusal from GPRF is another topic…
Sorry, you're saying the Allied Military didn't exist? If you have a better name in mind, that's fine, but AMGOT (for France) is simply wrong. If the notes had never been issued, due to the failure of the AMGOT to be brought into being, AMGOT would be the right issuing entity. However, since they were issued despite AMGOT's failure to materialize, we need a more appropriate name.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Sorry, you're saying the Allied Military didn't exist? If you have a better name in mind, that's fine, but AMGOT (for France) is simply wrong. If the notes had never been issued, due to the failure of the AMGOT to be brought into being, AMGOT would be the right issuing entity. However, since they were issued despite AMGOT's failure to materialize, we need a more appropriate name.
I wont fight it
Feel free to request the name you prefer, even if it creates inconsistency with french version and with wikipedia entries which use those banknotes as illustration for AMGOT
Don't worry, I intend to request the removal of AMGOT from the French side as well. This is entirely consistent with the Wikipedia article, which clearly states that the AMGOT didn't exist in France. Please add “Allied Military” (EN) and “Militaire Allié” (FR) to the list of “Issuing banks” for France, then we can ensure consistency across both language versions (since this is not an independent free-text field).
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Don't worry, I intend to request the removal of AMGOT from the French side as well. This is entirely consistent with the Wikipedia article, which clearly states that the AMGOT didn't exist in France. Please add “Allied Military” (EN) and “Militaire Allié” (FR) to the list of “Issuing banks” for France, then we can ensure consistency across both language versions (since this is not an independent free-text field).
No sorry, the issuing bank field is only for banks and other financial institutions. I agree the current issuing entity field is not perfect due to language-dependency, it should be improved in the future, but misusing another field in the meantime is no solution imo
Well, if that's the intention, it really needs to be made clear. I suspect there may be plenty of non-financial institutions in that first field. If that's the rule going forward, I'll request the changes in the free-text field of both language versions. I'll also craft some appropriate comments in both languages, since this is clearly a poorly understood corner of French numismatics.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
These notes were printed in the U.S.A. and issued by the Allied military during the initial stages of the liberation of France in 1944. They were not approved by the Provisional Government of the French Republic but were accepted by banks and for payment of taxes. The larger denominations were demonetized in June 1945 but the 2, 5 and 10 francs were not demonetized until the introduction of the euro.
Ces billets ont été imprimés aux États-Unis et émis par l'armée alliée lors des premières étapes de la libération de la France en 1944. Ils n'ont pas été approuvés par le gouvernement provisoire de la République française mais ont été acceptés par les banques et pour le paiement des impôts. Les grosses coupures ont été démonétisées en juin 1945 mais les 2, 5 et 10 francs ne l'ont été qu'à l'introduction de l'euro.
The translation is straight from Google but looks good to me. I'll add a link to the list of demonetizations.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Yes. I see this link states they were AMGOT notes by the way ;-)
“However, the AMGOT notes were released in Normandy, where they were not really popular”
Yes, the term AMGOT does get used as a catch-all term to include these issues and those for Italy, Germany and Japan. Unfortunately, I can't find a direct reference for de Gaulle's memoirs.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
