As noted below, I’ve been working on a critical commentary on George Soros’ Atlantic Article, ‘The Bubble of American Supremacy‘. But, as the old blogging phase goes, “You snooze, you lose,” and Matthew Stinson has written a better version of it already.
There are one or two points left open, and I’ll try and get to them today, but go read both Soros’ article and Matthews great commentary…
Sorry A.L., but thanks for the link. I almost lost that post when Bloghosts went down the other day!
Matthew did a nice takedown of Soros’ article, which I thought was pretty weak, actually.
A much better critique of Bush foreign policy would be to say that he’s misunderstood that American empire is the partly the product of the very international institutions his administration denigrates. Our future ability to tilt the international playing field in our favor is now in jeopardy. While it was inevitable after the end of the Cold War that we’d see a loosening of the bond between America and its allies, Bush has exacerbated this trend.
Mr. Soros appears to have the same problem as many of our Senators: he has confused wealth with intelligence or ability. They are not necessary concommitants.
Why is it that only Bush is blamed for “weakening international institutions” and “offending our allies”?
Why not blame Chirac and Schroeder for willful and unjustified intransigence at the UN? Why not castigate them for “offending their close friend, the US”? Why not critique the outdated structure of many of our old, ’50’s era relationships?
I know I would disagree with Praktike on many issues, and my goal is not to open up a huge War on Terror debate.
But it takes two sides to make a relationship. I just can’t see why Bush is ALWAYS the bad guy. Since when is the US government exclusively responsible for maintaining good relationships by doing what other countries tell it to do? Do those other countries owe the relationship nothing?
Our future ability to tilt the international playing field in our favor is now in jeopardy.
Yes, it is. Other countries no longer need our military might to keep the Soviets at bay; they feel free to oppose us without regard to the possible consequences. I see that as post-Cold War realignment. I don’t see that as Bush’s fault; he didn’t bring down the Berlin Wall, after all.
Praktike, if the only way we can win the war on terror is to make our policies conform to those of France and Germany, we might as well just glass over the Middle East and be done with it. France and Germany want the United States humbled, if not outright destroyed. We’ll never get significant help from them, no matter what we do.
Riyadh delenda est!
Rob, we seem to have shifted threads. No matter, it’s all in good sport.
As I’ve said before on this blog, I believe our European allies are largely craven, spoiled, and morally bankrupt. The realist tradition is much stronger in European politics, and under Chirac it masquerades as something else. While he occasionally stumbles on a good idea, he’s clearly full of shit most of the time.
Since the end of WWII, American foreign policy has tacitly accepted the weakness of our allies. As we both seem to believe, the American security umbrella was a powerful incentive that helped keep the children in line. Yet at the same time, America’s willingness to be patient and be the grownup among the little children was also important. In addition, the international institutions we built have been our playground.
With the demise of the Soviet Union, these latter forces are all the more critical. We can hardly guarantee, say, Germany protection against terrorist attacks.
No, Bush is not solely to blame, in light of the larger trends. But you cannot deny that this administration has thumbed its nose at a lot of international initiatives and institutions in ways that no previous leadership group had done. Were these international institutions perfect? Absolutely not, but rather than rolling up its sleeves and working to fix them, the Bush team said “Fuck these guys, we’re doing our own thing.”
Cato, what are you talking about? When will this straw man go away?
The French and Germans have rolled up plenty of cells, shut down financing sources, and helped us with intelligence on Al Qaeda. There are plenty of German troops in Afghanistan.
Just because they didn’t support the Iraq war doesn’t mean they don’t support our efforts with Al Qaeda.
I guess I’m willing to say “Fuck these guys” too. I no longer consider it in our interest to work within the grossly outdated structure we have built (principally, I mean the U.N.). We need new structures altogether, preferably built by people who believe in freedom rather than communist spies (just so you know I’m not being paranoid, look up “Alger Hiss.”)
Also, I applaud Bush’s nose-thumbing in some cases as simple honesty, which contrasts sharply with Clinton’s simple lying. For instance, both Kyoto and the ICC were destined to go down in defeat; the Senate squished them with unheard-of majorities (95-0 or therabouts).
Clinton, a political genius, knew when he signed them that that would be the result. He signed anyway. That was a fundamentally dishonest act which did much for his international reputation and ego–he is still beloved abroad, which I am sure he just loves–but nothing for the country he was supposed to serve. I can’t fault Bush for telling the world what the Senate had already said. If the rest of the world is clueless about American Constitutional process, that’s their media’s fault, not Bush’s.
I don’t think we can be liked by the majority of the world’s people or governments; the best we can do is be respected and/or feared.
Look, I wish France and Germany had been on board for the Iraq war. But no amount of sweet talk would have convinced them, and I’m not the least bit inclined to subordinate the most important decision a President can make to those you aptly call “children.” In the mean time, we do have a couple dozen allies with boots on the ground. What more do you want?
One thing I didn’t develop in my critique is that Soros is mostly repackaging his attacks on “market fundamentalism” from the late 1990s as attacks on “neoconservative ideology” today. The language is the same (castigating Washington for one-size-fits-all approaches) and his allies are the same. I think many Clintonites will cheer Soros because he’s attacking Bush without recognizing that he also despises Clinton’s neoliberal economic policies, which were (and I say this as a conservative) his finest achievements in foreign policy.
The saddest thing about Soros’ article, aside from the fact that he’s going to base an entire book on it, is that he chooses the wrong economic analogy for the description of American power. The problem is not that American power is a “bubble” of false power, but that American power is real, yet potentially suffers from the same pitfalls as a monopoly: i.e. a failure to adapt and innovate. This power stagnation caught up to us in the late 1990s with the rise of al-Qaeda and similar asymmetric threats which caught us painfully unawares. It’s important to debate exactly how American power should remain dynamic, whether we should use hard power, soft power, or a mix of the two, but that’s not a debate Mr. Soros cares to participate in.
I guess I’m willing to say “Fuck these guys” too. I no longer consider it in our interest to work within the grossly outdated structure we have built (principally, I mean the U.N.). We need new structures altogether, preferably built by people who believe in freedom rather than communist spies (just so you know I’m not being paranoid, look up “Alger Hiss.”)
….
I don’t think we can be liked by the majority of the world’s people or governments; the best we can do is be respected and/or feared.
OK, but where have we actually tried to build new structures? And are entire countries spies?
Do you honestly believe that Europeans don’t believe in freedom? As for being liked v. feared, how is this consistent with spreading democracy? Has The Prince suddenly become a blueprint for freedom?
Praktike:
Part of the reason we WERE willing to tolerate the childishness (your phrase, not mine) of the Europeans during the Cold War was precisely the fact of the Cold War. Thus, in order to maintain a common front against Communism, we were prepared to shoulder a little more than our share of the burden, and put up w/ more than our share of the carping.
It is worth noting, however, that Europe, too, understood then the stakes better. Thus, despite the millions in the street, Helmut Kohl (and more to his credit, Helmut Schmidt) stood firm on INF, as did Maggie Thatcher (but the Brits have long been w/ us). And Mitterand openly supported the US on the tough issues (e.g., INF).
If the US has been less willing to play along in the post-Cold War world, part of it also rests on the shoulders of the European elite, who have been far more prepared to “go off the reservation” in chase of votes (Schroeder) or perceived nat’l interest (Chirac).
As for international institutions, note that the US is still prepared to back IMF, World Bank, and WTO (steel tariffs notwithstanding—a horrible mistake, IMO). More to the point, the creation of groups to counter North Korea and the like suggests that, outside Europe, the US may well be willing to go multilateral.
OK, but where have we actually tried to build new structures?
Well, yes. It’s called a “coalition of the willing” and I hope it will be made more permanent. But these things take time, and, despite my conservative tendencies, I’m more radical on this than most anyone.
And are entire countries spies?
Hmm…mystery question. But my comments calls for some elaboration. The UN was concieved by starry-eyed utopians who (apparently) believed it would “save future generations from the scourge of war.” It was subsequently hijacked by communists and thugs of every stripe as a means to give themselves legitimacy and make the U.S. look bad. I’m open to correction on the subject, but I can’t think of anything the U.N. has ever done that couldn’t have been done as well or better by an ad-hoc coalition of the sort we have going in Iraq.
(Note that I think the WHO is one of the most important international bodies in existance today; note also that the UN performs an important ministerial service as a repository for treaties, etc. But none of those things require the existance of the Security Council or General Assembly, which are next to worthless, and pretty much always have been).
Do you honestly believe that Europeans don’t believe in freedom?
Well, that’s a complicated question with a long, long answer. But for the most part, the Europeans do believe in freedom, and I would probably want France in any new international structure. I just wouldn’t give them a veto.
As for being liked v. feared, how is this consistent with spreading democracy? Has The Prince suddenly become a blueprint for freedom?
It has nothing to do with freedom. It has to do with our ability to “tilt the playing field” to our advantage. We are at a permanent disadvantage, which no amount of diplo-speak can change, because people are guaranteed to dislike us. Our enemies are at a permanent advantage, because it’s easy to demagogue against the biggest player on the field.
“Are entire countries spies?” If the country is France, yes. Their record is eeerily consistent, from passing information to the Serbs during the Kosovo campaign to doing the same with Saddam (and information was the least of it, it seems).
The one redeeming feature of France at the moment is their FBI-equivalent DST and its Director Jean-Jacques Pascal, which has excellent intelligence sources through its Algerian networks. Deeper cooperation with France that extends to offering them policy vetoes verges on crazy – their position as a hostile neutral is roughly analagous to that of Franco’s Spain in WW2.
Germany… Rob, gotta give them some props for good work in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They have the potential to deserve the title “ally” on a case by case basis. Overall, I’d call them a friendly neutral. I’m willing to give them a say on policy in situations where they step up with a useful and material contribution – but not otherwise.
Praktike, what the French and Germans just don’t get, is that the status quo in the Middle East sucks. Fomenting instability in the region is a good thing, because the status quo is unacceptable — anything would be an improvement.
The great waves of immigration from Europe to the U.S. in the late 1800s – early 1900s, along with Europe’s disastrous 20th century, have sucked the optimism out of “old Europe”. Change for the better is both possible, and necessary, if we wish to avoid glassing over the Middle East.
BTW, considering the Europe’s awful record in foreign affairs during the previous century, why should America believe their current advice is any better?
Riyadh delenda est!
Dean:
They went multilateral on Korea as an act of desperation, not policy. As for free trade, you’re right, with steel, textiles, and agriculture excepted, this administration is internationalist. FTAA is a good example as well. I would have been shocked if we had pulled out of the WTO, IMF (speaking of institutions that need reform…), and World Bank. ABM, Kyoto, ICC–flawed, yes–unsalvageable?
Rob:
Our enemies are at a permanent advantage, because it’s easy to demagogue against the biggest player on the field.
Hmmm…this is a tough one. More thoughts on this after some reflection.
Joe:
Good points about France. They’re obviously the tough one here. Reforming/eliminating the Security Council, as Rob suggests, is a good way to go. As for Germany, throw in Ramstein as well.
(By the way, I feel like I keep unintentionally hijacking threads here. I enjoy these debates, but if this is a problem, Joe, please let me know.)
Cato, I’m not sure who you’re arguing with. But I’m not sure it’s me.
“Multilateral on Korea due to desperation….”
WHAT the heck do you base that on? Do you really think that if we wanted to be unilateralist about it, as so many accuse us viz. Iraq (e.g., start bombing, mount a blockade, etc.), that we could not? What is this desperation to which you’re referring?
Now, if you want a peaceful solution, yes, it requires a multilateral solution. And even then, it’s rather doubtful (as developments suggest). But where this idea of “desperation” comes from, I’m flummoxed.
As for the treaties you cite:
Kyoto. Yes, it was broken. Give it up. Nor would a Gore ADministration have made one whit of difference. Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification.
ABM. Depends on what you want. If you want a missile defense system, then yeah, you probably have to withdraw from the treaty. Which is what we did. As per the terms of the treaty. That’s not BREAKING a treaty, by the way.
ICC. Oh, puh-leeze. Yes, it was utterly broken. Do you think the Belgians would’ve rescinded the laws they’d passed if we’d caved on ICC? And just WHO would’ve been trying to enforce this, given the French and German (and Russian, and Chinese) attitude towards Saddam? You DO think he might be subject to its terms, yes?
But do you think Ariel Sharon or Saddam Hussein would’ve wound up in front of it faster?
BTW, you seem to dismiss free trade, yet at the end of the day, unilateralism is far more destructive in that area (which has both real institutions and affects arguably more people) than in the area of security (remind me of the last time it really wasn’t unilateral in security)? If this Admin were nearly as unilateralist as portrayed, this would be the first thing to go.
Praktike,
The topics we’re discussing here are relevant to the Soros article’s focus and contentions. You can’t hijack a plane that’s already flying to your destination.
As for your participation, I think it has worked to elevate most of the debates here – and the caliber of our other commenters has a lot to do with that as well.
* Agree that multilateralism on Korea has been driven by the lack of any good alternatives.
On the other hand, the policy of shoving some of theese problem to regional bodies/groups when other coutnries in a region are directly threatened is a precedent I’d like to see expanded where possible. Time for the rest of the world to learn that Daddy is busy, and they’ll have to clean up their own messes sometimes.
* Agree with the idea of throwing France off the U.N. Security Council – but alas, it can’t be done without France’s consent.
Is the U.N. reformable? And what would that look like? I tend to say “no” and “n/a”, but that would be an interesting debate to have some time.
* ABM treaty… look at North Korea, and look at Iran, and look at the trends. It’s exactly what people who warned about rogue states in the early 90s predicted – but the advice of those who sound like Soros today prevented more timely action.
If anything, the USA waited too long to rip that treaty up.
Hmmm, on the bright side, not having Uncle Sam ready with a missile shield is really focusing the Japanese right now on missile defense cooperation and their security policy in general. As usual, it’s sometimes hard to tell where the bad news ends and the good news begins – or is it the other way ’round?
Have a good weekend, everyone, and thanks for being part of a consistently excellent comments section!
1) Korea: see this. I don’t have much to add.
2) Free trade: sorry to be confusing. I didn’t intend to dismiss these institutions; with the exception of the IMF, I think they’re good. The IMF is far too ideological and uni-prescriptive; witness what happened in Argentina. But I strongly believe in free trade and free markets, although I’m somewhat suspicious of too much openness in capital markets.
As for the ICC, I honestly don’t know if it was salvageable or not. I fear not, but I was asking an honest question. I do think Kyoto could have been saved, with some serious work. Witness how surprisingly close the McCain-Lieberman vote was, as well as China’s recent moves on mileage standards.
3) Missile defense: it’s a joke. All the North Koreans would need to do would be to attach a metallic balloon, and, oops, there goes your $120 billion investment, as well as several million people. Research it? Yes. Deploy it? Quite premature. Although there’s a difference between short and long-range missile defense here.
Praktike:
I’ve read Marshall’s piece. Let me say bluntly that it’s hogwash.
The Marmot (don’t have the link) fisks the piece. (Come to think of it, I think the Marmot’s piece is linked somewhere on this site.)
Kyoto? Given the objectives, one of which was to throttle back the American economy, I doubt it. Like I said, it was NOT going to pass the Congress, whoever was President.
As for Chinese mileage standards, I think that has MUCH more to do w/ Chinese concerns about future oil imports (steadily rising as it is) and energy security, and less about the environment. Note that THEY, in any case, weren’t nearly as subject to Kyoto, as an underdeveloped country.
Oh, and whether Russia will still go along w/ Kyoto is also quite questionable, as Putin now foresees Russian reindustrialization (rather than serving as a sink for the rest of Western Europe’s industrial pollution).
ABM? Well, we were at the point where research would start violating ABM. So, if it’s worth researching, then ABM probably had to go.
More to the point, it raises some interesting problems for a North Korea as opposed to a USSR: limited resources to spend on either building new missiles, or countermeasures, and missile allocation problems. (Note that PAC-3 did what PAC-2 did not: actually shoot down SCUDs.)
Praktike, your statement,
was what prompted my replies.
Whatever role the aforementioned organizations may have had in the rise of American power, they have become an impediment to the maintenance of that power. About the only benefit the U.S. received from the U.N. debate over Iraq, is that it discouraged Saddam from launching preemptive attacks against our troops during the build-up.
Does anyone believe that Jacko Chirac views the U.N. as a pillar of American influence and power? Chirac sees the U.N. as a means of restraining and ultimately crippling America. We are foolish in the extreme, if we cooperate with his schemes in any way.
Europe may not have the strength or will to resist the Islamonazis, but that does not mean America should let herself be dragged under by “the bond between America and its allies”. America must fight this menace, by every available means, even if we must fight alone.
Riyadh delenda est!
Dean, sorry to be confusing again, regarding Kyoto.
I agree that the agreement as it stood was a non-starter.
What I am saying is that, with significant revision, the general concept of an international protocol dealing with global warming was achievable.
You’re right about China. I shouldn’t have thrown that in.
Regardless, I haven’t seen a commitment to re-engage at all. Leadership starts from the top (or fish rot from the head).
As for ABM; I’ll look into it further.
Boy am I tired. You guys are tough.
Cato, I respect your opinions, but I think you and I are just too far apart to have meaningful discussions.
Have a nice weekend, everybody.
So much for Armed Liberal’s call for civil conversations. 🙂
In the future, keep in mind that a Frenchman will be among you.
Cato the Youngest,
C’est quoi la différence entre ta cravate et la queue d’un chien? La queue du chien elle cache tout le trou-du cul.
Translation:
What’s the difference between your tie and a dog’s tail? The dog’s tail completely hides the asshole.
Praktike:
If such an agreement can be reached, I expect that eventually it’ll come about. Perhaps it’ll be “Mexico City,” or “Johannesburg,” or “Montreal.”
If it’s as important as you say, it’ll come about.
If it’s as achievable as you think, it’ll probably be sooner, rather than later.
But raising it otherwise, I think, is somehting of a red herring.
Cato the Younger,
BTW, might I suggest a perusal of the Roman historians; they too had a difficult time conceiving a Roman collapse.
JB –
I’m actually curious about what was uncivil about the discussion (before your comment to Cato, that is) and what possibly could have prompted your little outburst?
A.L.
Armed Liberal,
Oh, I don’t know; lies, half-truths, and other such things. Apparently civility is only reserved for Americans.
Its really perfidious Americans who cannot be trusted; de Gaulle witnessed this himself when FDR tried to make a deals with the Vichy government up to August of 1944, right in the face of a man who led a movement against the Nazis when his country was occupied by them and run by fascist, and traitorous Frenchmen. And who did this before there was ever a hope that tide could be turned against the Nazis. Any right thinking, anti-Vichy Frenchman could never forgive America for this stab in the back; which was struck deeper by the fact that the US purposefully denied weapons to the French resistance by delaying and otherwise witholding weapons drops.
De Gaulle also witnessed his close ally, Poland, be carved up by the USSR with the blessings of the US and the UK; as historian Norman Davies writes, Free France was the only major ally to hold fast with the Poles at the end of the war. Its the US/UK treatment of Poland in 1944 that spurred de Gaulle to put in place a Free French regime in France; he didn’t want the US/UK to decide France’s fate is it had Poland’s. Ann Coulter likes to blame the fate of Poland on FDR, but Churchill – that member of the conservative pantheon – also willingly went along as well.
Jean, let me restate your point: When asked for examples of incivility, you replied “Oh, I don’t know; lies, half-truths, and other such things.” So – unless we are in absolute accord with the world as Jean Bart sees it, we are being impolite.
C’est une vie dur pour toi je crois (forgive my written French, it’s been twenty years since I lived there, and I read and speak it somewhat better than I write it) if that’s really what you expect.
Somehow we crude Amis manage to disagree – and sometimes learn things from each other – without calling each other assholes, as you did above. But perhaps that’s because we didn’t go to one of les grandes ecoles (actually my ex-wife did, but that’s another story)…
You’re wasting my time, Jean.
A.L.
Armed Liberal,
I would say that a lie is impolite, yes.
He/she is an asshole; if you don’t like that conclusion, then tough shit.
Les grands ecoles are not as important as they were; in fact, the ENA has slipping attendance every year. That Raffarin (our Prime Minister) did not attend one is another example of their demotion. So your information about France is dated; as it likely is about a number of things.
btw, I’m interested in people’s thoughts about this We s Clark speech at CFR:
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6545
Jean,
The Merovingian in The Matrix was more entertaining. You’ll want to work on the routine a bit more, and try some more creative French curses. Since this is a blog, you don’t need Monica Belucci at your side, but if can bring someone like that along with you it would be a plus.
Armed Liberal,
I should also say that another non-ENA graduate in the French government is interior minister, Nicholas Sarkozy – possibly France’s next President. I know I will vote for him; even in the first round! He came off very well in his last appearance on “100 minutes.”
Joe Katzman,
Well, that’s essentially all Americans want, correct? Entertainment.
“Well, that’s essentially all Americans want, correct? Entertainment.”
So when someone asks you to flesh out your vague pronouncements with facts, you resort to banal stereotypes. Got it.
From a historical standpoint, I’d like to say that:
1. De Gaulle was one of the more opportunistic political figures of the past few centuries, and implying as JB does that he was somehow above the dealing and backroom politics of the time is frankly ignorant. De Gaulle spent a lot of energy during WWII working deals to solidify his personal power which would have been better spent trying to free France; one example is his maneuverings to marginalize Henri Giraud after Admiral Darlan was assassinated in 1942. The fellow was hardly purer than FDR or Churchill, he just had fewer pieces on the board to work with at the time.
2. “Stab in the back”? How quickly Normandy is forgotten.
3. It should also be said that had France fulfilled its treaty obligations to Poland in 1939 and launched more than a token attack into Germany, instead of dickering and basically standing by as Poland was carved up between Germany and the USSR, much of the tragedy of WWII – including the subsequent 40+ years of Poland as a USSR satellite – could have been avoided. You’ll forgive me if I look askance at any Frenchman claiming they stood true by Poland during WWII. 1944 was a little too late for the French to rediscover their principles, at least for the Poles.
Je ne sais pas what Americans want, I’m not one.
But if you’re going to show up on the blog with slogans and bombast instead of rational arguments, you had better at least be entertaining. So far, you’re failing on both counts… but you are doing a bang up job of making my point with Praktike re: France. So, please continue.
Jean Bart, to paraphrase Mark Twain, if you feed a dog, and make him prosperous, he will not bite you — that is the difference between a Frenchman and a dog.
Yes, Americans are terribly naive, when it comes to foreign policy. Once upon a time, we actually believed that Frenchmen were capable of basic human decency, if not gratitude.
One day Al-Qaeda will send France the sort of “gift” they’ve been sending to America, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Turkey. I hope you enjoy it, when it comes, because you will have earned it.
Riyadh delenda est!
Jean, if you don’t know that “Cato the Younger” was a prominent Roman Senator, great-grandson of the better-known Cato the Elder, violently opposed to both Julius and Octavius Caesar, allied with Pompey against Octavius, and died by his own hand, rather than surrender to Octavius, perhaps you should peruse some Roman history, instead of lecturing people with degrees in history.
I chose the pseduonym “Cato the Youngest“, because of my admiration for both of the Senators Cato.
Rome fell because it’s people became too decadent to defend themselves. That sounds more like Frenchmen than Americans, to me. Today’s Frenchmen aren’t even willing to let others defend them.
Riyadh delenda est!
Yehudit,
No, Joe Katzman rather lamely tried to insult me; I turned his insult on him.
tagryn,
Actually, when the Free French tried to free French territory, all we got were complaints from the FDR administration – SEE the Miquelon affair. And to be frank, de Gaulle’s efforts at rallying the French empire were amazing; given that he was a little known figure in France in June 1940, and his setting up of a Free French government on London was nothing less than audacious. By 1943 France had one-hundred thousand soldiers fighting in Italy, had played a pivotal role in the defense of Egypt against the Germans, and by 1944, it field around half the army which landed in southern France, opening ports critical to the Allied cause.
Regarding his political manuevres, he would not have had to do so, if FDR did not continually try to undermine his leadership. Throughout the war FDR acted more like an enemy to de Gaulle, a man who broke with his own government, risking his life and the life of his family. Right up until August 1944 he continued to try to undermine de Gaulle; it was only the intervention of Eisenhower, who had a very good relationship with de Gaulle, that stopped FDR’s meddling.
Yes it was a stab in the back; FDR should have never tried to deal with the Vichy regime; it is unforgivable.
Invading Germany in 1939 would have led to an earlier collapse of France; and to be frank, whatever France did in 1939 hardly excuses the behavior of the US.
Joe Katzman,
My arguments have been wholly rational; yours however have been non-existant.
Cato the Younger,
My comment was to illustrate your obvious ignorance of Roman historians and their inability to recognize that even their empire could collapse. And anyone who could “admire” the Roman Republic, as well as the Empire, has some serious problems.
Cato the Younger,
I am sure it would please you to see thousands of Frenchmen die; I of course don’t share the same sentiments when it comes to Americans.
For all of Twain’s dislike of Frenchmen, he certainly did like Emile Zola.
And what America and the UK is not defending France; in fact, your actions in the middle east are making the world more dangerous for France – so you can see why I don’t “apppreciate” your actions. As to human decency, well, I didn’t wish the deaths of thousands of Americans as you have wished for the deaths of thousands of Frenchmen. In other words, if your definition of decency is that Frenchmen die by the thousands, then you can keep it.
It’s pretty well accepted by historians that the Allies were frustrated with de Gaulle because he always put the interests of himself and France (usually in that order) before the overall war aim of defeating Germany. I’d also submit that some of the work you give him credit for had the framework for it set up by others, such as Darlan and Giraud. Like any good politician, de Gaulle was just better at getting his name in the paper and influencing perception.
And de Gaulle wasn’t exactly 100% when it came to opposition to Vichy, either. According to historian Henry Rousso:
“But what is more shocking is de Gaulle’s own views of Pétain and the Vichy Government’s collaboration with Hitler. Rousso shows clearly the ambivalence and opportunism in de Gaulle’s attitude to resistance and collaboration. A reported comment by de Gaulle in 1946 was that France had needed both de Gaulle (urging resistance) and Pétain (doing deals with Hitler): France in the depths of its crisis, said de Gaulle, needed these ‘deux cordes à son arc’ (Rousso, pp. 48-55). Hardly the views of a committed opponent of fascism and Vichy collaboration.”
http://www.well.ac.uk/cfol/occupation.asp
Finally, France was treaty-obligated to react to the ’39 invasion, and that they did not help will forever be a mark of shame on France. That they were opposed opposite the Maginot Line by skeleton forces which could have been swept aside easily only adds to the dishonor – this was, in fact, what the German OKW feared most when Hitler ordered Case White to go forward. They were told by Hitler that France would never have the stomach to attack, and unfortunately for the world, he was proven right. So arguing that the Allies abandoned Poland is more than a little hypocritical – France beat them to the punch by five years.
tagryn,
“It’s pretty well accepted by historians that the Allies were frustrated with de Gaulle because he always put the interests of himself and France (usually in that order) before the overall war aim of defeating Germany.”
Hmm, certainly not the new generation of historians; those who are are privy to the massive disinformation campaign run against de Gaulle during the war particularly which was used as a means to discredit de Gaulle in the eyes of FDR.
“I’d also submit that some of the work you give him credit for had the framework for it set up by others, such as Darlan and Giraud. Like any good politician, de Gaulle was just better at getting his name in the paper and influencing perception.”
Please give me examples; you are wrong as far as the efforts of le Clerc are concerned, I know that much.
“And de Gaulle wasn’t exactly 100% when it came to opposition to Vichy, either. According to historian Henry Rousso:
‘But what is more shocking is de Gaulle’s own views of Pétain and the Vichy Government’s collaboration with Hitler. Rousso shows clearly the ambivalence and opportunism in de Gaulle’s attitude to resistance and collaboration. A reported comment by de Gaulle in 1946 was that France had needed both de Gaulle (urging resistance) and Pétain (doing deals with Hitler): France in the depths of its crisis, said de Gaulle, needed these ‘deux cordes à son arc’ (Rousso, pp. 48-55). Hardly the views of a committed opponent of fascism and Vichy collaboration.’
http://www.well.ac.uk/cfol/occupation.asp
So you are slamming de Gaulle for a statement he is “reported” to have made *after* the war, when he wasn’t even in power? If you are going to try to find some linkage to Vichy France, you are going to have to do better than that. Very weak.
“Finally, France was treaty-obligated to react to the ’39 invasion, and that they did not help will forever be a mark of shame on France. That they were opposed opposite the Maginot Line by skeleton forces which could have been swept aside easily only adds to the dishonor – this was, in fact, what the German OKW feared most when Hitler ordered Case White to go forward. They were told by Hitler that France would never have the stomach to attack, and unfortunately for the world, he was proven right. So arguing that the Allies abandoned Poland is more than a little hypocritical – France beat them to the punch by five years.”
Actually, France lost her independence for Poland. It declared war, did it not?
And exactly what was France going to attack Germany with? Its bomber force of fifty planes? As I’ve already written, France was a militarily weak country; without British help in attacking Poland, any effort France would have put forward would ended in a disaster. The French military command knew this. And when they did try to get the one country that could provide them air support that was needed for an attack of Germany, that is the British, well the British balked. But that’s right; you forgot, Britain also made a guarantee to Poland – I wonder what happened there, eh? Quit twisting the historical record to make France out to be some lone pariah – I know you hate France, but do you have to lie to vent that hatred?
tagryn,
And to be more blunt, France spent much of the 1930s desperately trying to enlist American support against the Germans, and was continually rebuffed by the pacifist and isolationist American regime. Woodrow Wilson promised in 1919 that any future aggressive act by Germany would be met with American force; Lloyd George also made the same the promise. All I can say is that British lived up to their promise; America was very tardy in its delivery.
The outcome of WWII is the basic reason why France developed its own nuclear arsenal; we no longer wanted to be held hostage to the whims of the American electorate or America’s Presidents.
I’m quite aware that Britian had a military treaty with Poland as well, but they didn’t share a border with Germany, and weren’t in a position to help the Poles with a ground attack. The French were, and as we’ll see, air support had little to do with their failure to do so.
“And exactly what was France going to attack Germany with? Its bomber force of fifty planes? As I’ve already written, France was a militarily weak country; without British help in attacking Poland, any effort France would have put forward would ended in a disaster. The French military command knew this. ”
Go read “Operation Saar: A Lost Opportunity” from the Sept. ’99 issue of World War II magazine. The text is at http://preview.thehistorynet.com/worldwarii/articles/1999/0999_text.htm
Basically, Gamelin had the Third, Fourth and Fifth French armies available and sent them across the border on Sept. 7, 1939, facing 13 weak German divisions. However, the French displayed much the same pacifism and timidity you attibute to the US in your tu quoque, and did little more than make a display along the border while the Poles were dying, drawing none of the pressure off Poland.
As for what was capable, as Austra writes, “On September 21 Gamelin renounced any prospect of continuing the offensive and ordered that the French army should withdraw to the Maginot Line in the event of a German counterattack. Not all of the French commanders agreed with this assessment. General Henri Giraud, commander of the Seventh Army, saw an almost unbelievable opportunity for French forces in the Saar. He believed a corps could have seized the area between Saarbrücken and Trier. Such a move not only would prove an embarrassment to Germany but also would secure the Metz Corridor into France and open avenues to further operations toward the Rhine in the direction of Koblenz or Mannheim. In either case, it seemed possible that French forces would be able to reach the Rhine. ”
You know, when you talk with supposed authority about things it turns out you know little about, it just undermines the rest of what you say. Something to consider for future reference, JB.
Jean Bart, my definition of “human decency” includes the civilized nations of the world standing together against the barbarians, to prevent anybody’s people from being murdered. That probably does offend cowardly Frenchmen (apologies for the redundancy). France apparently thinks it can buy these thugs off. I direct your attention to Saudi Arabia. They thought the thugs could be bought off, too. Unfortunately, they were wrong.
When a person or nation willfully ingores reality, and comes to grief as a result, my sympathy is somewhat limited. Any Frenchman who doesn’t have his head buried in the sand (or other places where the sun doesn’t shine), should be able to see that Al-Qaeda has begun biting the hands that fed it, a category that includes France. And BTW, I didn’t say I’d enjoy seeing Frenchmen die, only that you should enjoy the results of the stupid French policies you’ve advocated.
As for my “admiration for the Roman Republic…”, societies can only be judged fairly against their contemporaries, not by the values of 2,000 years in the future. The Roman Republic was a better place than its neighbors. And Cato the Younger fought against the Caesars, ultimately choosing death over surrender.
BTW, the late Roman Empire (which I don’t admire), was not exactly a free society. If the Roman historians of the period forsaw the collapse of the empire, they probably would have been wise to keep it to themselves.
Yes, America and Britain’s actions have caused Al-Qaeda to look for “softer” targets (Saudi Arabia, Turkey). Sorry if that makes France more attractive to the thugs, but they will eventually come for you, no matter what you do. America has no duty to let the the thugs kill Americans, in order to “protect” Frenchmen. We are trying to hunt them down and kill them, and cut off their sources of support. This will ultimately make everyone safer, including France.
Riyadh delenda est!
tagryn,
The fact remains that the French military was far weaker than the German military. Based on this knowledge, Gamelin gambled that it was best to keep his forces from a main confrontation with the Germans until (a) more of the British air force and army had arrived, (b) shipments of military material from the US had arrived, and (c) the French army had undergone more training (which it lacked in comparison to the German army). It was a long-term approach. Now we may disagree with his assessment in hindsight, but the fact remains that the assessment was not based on cowardice; but a desire to win the war. And Gemelin thought he was undertaking the best strategy to do so; to create static lines of defense as a means to dampen the German superiority in fluid warfare. The fact that he came up with a fairly ingenuous strategy of creating “defensive” islands in the face of the Meuse and Marne breakthroughs, shows that he had a real genious for warfare at times. The weakness of his plan by that time was the fact that much of the material of the French army had already been lost. And I don’t need others to make these arguments for me, I can make them myself.
Of course Gamelin’s decisions were also based on the fact that 1/2 of Poland was occupied by the USSR (they invaded on Sepetember 17, 1939 – fifteen days after French mobilization); so now you are wanting the French to invade Nazi Germany, but the USSR as well.
And all you are doing for the Britons, with their far larger air force and navy, is making excuses.
Cato the Village Idiot,
“Jean Bart, my definition of “human decency” includes the civilized nations of the world standing together against the barbarians, to prevent anybody’s people from being murdered.”
Your definition includes dancing in the blood of others.
“When a person or nation willfully ingores reality, and comes to grief as a result, my sympathy is somewhat limited. Any Frenchman who doesn’t have his head buried in the sand (or other places where the sun doesn’t shine), should be able to see that Al-Qaeda has begun biting the hands that fed it, a category that includes France.”
So France is feeding Al Qaeda? First you idiots claim that Al Qaeda and Iraq are in league, now it’s France? Excuse my incredulity, but you have officially become a troll.
“The Roman Republic was a better place than its neighbors.”
Why exactly did the Roman Republic invade Carthage in that final war; committing one of the more barbarous acts in human history in the process? Better than the Macedonians, whom they literally enslaved because they wanted to live as a free people in a free kingdom? And how do you explain the destruction of Corinth? And how do you explain the overriding cassus belli of most of the Republic’s wars – war profit, that is the pillaging of the kingdoms’ and peoples’ it attacked, generally on a very thin pre-text. People who jack-off the “goodness” of the Romans typically are very uninformed about the nature of the Republic and the empire as a destructive and rather malevolent force.
“We are trying to hunt them down and kill them, and cut off their sources of support. This will ultimately make everyone safer, including France.”
Actually, I’ve no issue in hunting down Al Qaeda members; and I am not quite sure where you try to dredge up the converse. Apparently fabricating lies is in your nature.
JB –
“Cato the Village Idiot,”
…as I’ve noted, I don’t find your posts engaging enough to personally respond to (although you could manage to actually make some coherent arguments someday, in which case I’ll end Coventry).
But I will point out to you that the next time you (or anyone else) call someone a name on one of my threads on this blog – as opposed to accusing them of making a foolish or non-existant argument, as I’ve just accused you of – I’ll ban you from my threads. So far you’ve called one commenter an ‘asshole’ and another an ‘idiot’; I live in California, and we have a ‘three-strikes’ law…next time you’re gone, and your future comments with you.
We’re here to have a discussion, not act like we’re in kindergarten.
Fair warning…
A.L.
Armed Liberal,
When you start to act like an impartial moderator, I shall take you seriously. Need I remind you that Cato has accused France of aiding Al Qaeda; and had the following to say about all Frenchmen:
“That probably does offend cowardly Frenchmen (apologies for the redundancy).”
Excuse me for illustrating your duplicity, but it had to be done. But go ahead and ban me; enjoy your echo chamber here.
JB –
As noted, the next time you call a person you are having a dialog with a vulgar name, I will. Unless that was a request?
A.L.
Armed Liberal,
“…as I’ve noted, I don’t find your posts engaging enough to personally respond to (although you could manage to actually make some coherent arguments someday, in which case I’ll end Coventry).”
This is your way of saying that (a) you lack the depth of knowledge to actually have an argument with me, (b) that you refuse to actually gain such knowledge, and (c) that you are an intellectual coward. Of course its also your way of breaking your own rule about “kindgergarten” behavior.
Armed Liberal,
He he he. Oh I see; so personal insults are alright, so long as they are not vulgar? Why do you keep changing the rules? Because you aren’t being honest, that’s why.
BTW, when did the word “idiot” become vulgar?
JB:
It was hardly Gamelin who came up w/ the strategy of defensive islands to try and stem the tide. That was Weygand, who replaced Gamelin.
Indeed, even as the German columns lunged for the sea, Gamelin tended to hesitate (and in the process, managed to lose three of his armored divisions, leaving him only w/ de Gaulle’s ad hoc Fourth Armored).
As for the business with the Russians, that is simply bizarre. As early as winter 1940, both France and Britain were contemplating dispatching forces to aid the Finns, an act of war on the USSR far more explicit than any attack on Germany would have been.
Moreover, the 1939 Russo-German pact was simply a non-aggression pact, i.e., there was no commitment (nor expectation) that the USSR was expected to come to the aid of the Germans in event of allied attack.
As for losses of materiel, while certainly much was lost, it is also worth noting that France hardly committed all that it had to the fight. The divisions that were in the Maginot Line were not committed, the forces that manned the gaps BETWEEN the Maginot fortresses were REINFORCED (and these were often armored battalions), and, due to problems of both C2 and politics, new French equipment production was often misdirected (for which one can thank the French Left, which believed the COMINTERN’s arguments that this was a war between capitalists).
None of which takes away from, on the one hand, the courage of the average French soldier of the time (at least among the regulars), but which only detracts further from your bizarre attempt to pin the failure of France in 1940 on the United States and Great Britain.
The US was not an ally of France—it had no obligation to save it. More to the point, the failings of the French in the 1920s and 1930s, which you emphasize, are attributable to France itself, not to the governments of Baldwin or Coolidge. That Frenchmen believed “Better Hitler than Blum” suggests the internal discord that was truly at the heart of France’s failure.
It is worth noting that the British, Norwegian, and Dutch royal families fled, so as to continue the war from overseas. Yet, France chose not to continue the war even from her African colonies, but instead to surrender—totally. Again, a French choice.
JB:
“It was hardly Gamelin who came up w/ the strategy of defensive islands to try and stem the tide. That was Weygand, who replaced Gamelin.”
Actually it was Gamelin; Weygand did implement it though. You’ll find that it was the strategy designed in the 1970s to combat a Soviet invasion of Western Europe.
“As for the business with the Russians, that is simply bizarre. As early as winter 1940, both France and Britain were contemplating dispatching forces to aid the Finns, an act of war on the USSR far more explicit than any attack on Germany would have been.”
Well, the only way France could have liberated Poland in October 1939, which is what we are talking about here, is an invasion of both Germany and the USSR. And this would be France largely alone by that point; not with British help as would have occurred in 1940. And any help to the Finns would have likely ended up like the Norway fiasco, where thousands of French and British soldiers lost their lives due to some very foolish mistakes.
“Moreover, the 1939 Russo-German pact was simply a non-aggression pact, i.e., there was no commitment (nor expectation) that the USSR was expected to come to the aid of the Germans in event of allied attack.”
So? The point is that 1/2 of Poland was occupied by the Soviets; the only way for France alone to liberate Poland would to invade Germany, defeat the German army not only in Germany but also in the area of Poland that the Germans occupied, but also invade through Poland and then into the USSR to kick the Soviets out of the area of Poland that they had occupied.
“As for losses of materiel, while certainly much was lost, it is also worth noting that France hardly committed all that it had to the fight. The divisions that were in the Maginot Line were not committed, the forces that manned the gaps BETWEEN the Maginot fortresses were REINFORCED (and these were often armored battalions), and, due to problems of both C2 and politics, new French equipment production was often misdirected (for which one can thank the French Left, which believed the COMINTERN’s arguments that this was a war between capitalists).”
Actually, there was no strategic reserve left after the plunge into Belgium – even the BEF commanders realized this in May 1940; the forces on the maginot line were only formidable if they stayed there. France was experiencing supply problems for its military from 1932 onward; this was more an endemic problem than an issue of political sympathies. And any withdraw from the positions on the Maginot line would have not been able to be mobilized for a counter-offensive on the upper Meuse or the Marne or even the Seine river – in fact, it would have used to attack the German forces on the southern Meuse or the Moselle, getting to the Weygand line was not logistically possible at that point.
“None of which takes away from, on the one hand, the courage of the average French soldier of the time (at least among the regulars), but which only detracts further from your bizarre attempt to pin the failure of France in 1940 on the United States and Great Britain.”
When did I pin the failure of France on the US and Britain? France failed on its own; that the US did not honor its 1919 commitment is another matter entirely.
“More to the point, the failings of the French in the 1920s and 1930s, which you emphasize…”
Which by itself demonstrates that I do not “pin” the defeat on the British or the Americans.
“That Frenchmen believed ‘Better Hitler than Blum’ suggests the internal discord that was truly at the heart of France’s failure.”
Some Frenchmen believed this; and given that the government was a socialist one after 1936, most did not. The fact that were French fascists is often used as a means to declare that all Frenchmen were collaborators or wanted an invasion by Hitler, which is what is really bizarre here. Certainly the several million French slave laborers didn’t want this; and given French efforts to hide Jewish neighbors as well as wine and other things of importance that the Germans invariably tried to steal, that means millions of other Frenchmen did not either. One of the reasons why over 75% of the several hundred thousand French Jews survived the holocaust was due to individual French efforts to hide or otherwise conceal French Jews, and this despite the despicable and evil Vichy regime’s official policies against Jews.
“It is worth noting that the British, Norwegian, and Dutch royal families fled, so as to continue the war from overseas. Yet, France chose not to continue the war even from her African colonies, but instead to surrender—totally. Again, a French choice.”
You are completely wrong.
Actually France and Frechmen did choose to continue to fight; thus the Free French army, air force, and navy and its leadership under General de Gaulle, as well as the various strains of the resistance. And deputies and senators of the National Assembly did attempt to flee to London; however, when they got to Morrocco they were arrested. They would have made up the rump of a continuing French government in London. That France had its own Quisling, and collaborators, as almost every occupied nation in Europe had, does not mean that the French did not continue the fight.
And France did continue the war from its African and other colonies; re-conquering them from the Vichy administrations that ruled them if required (St. Pierre and Miquelon being the first). In fact, the only colony not taken back by the Free French either on its its own or with its allies was Indochina; a largely impossible task given the presence of the Japanese army there.
French soldiers also played a pivotal role throughout the war, for example the defense of Egypt in 1942, where they held a position for almost over two weeks against German and Italian forces that outnumbered them four to one when it was expected that the position could not be held. This is known as the battle of Bir Hakeim, and the French commander was General Koenig. For over two weeks, the Luftwaffe flew ~1,500 sorties against the defenses, whilst 4 German/Italian divisions attacked one French under-strength division. On repeated occassions the Germans called for Koenig to surrender, and he refused. Daring re-supply missions by the British kept the ammunition and other supplies coming to the Free French forces; and defense of Bir Hakeim is generally credited as being a major reason why the Germans did not bring about a defeat at El Alamein, having spent over two weeks sapping German supplies and destroying numerous German tanks that could have been used to win victory at El Alamein. What is even more amazing is that after two weeks, and near complete encirclement, the Free French division was able to make its escape and fight another day at El Alamein itself.
If you ever visit France you will notice that Bir Hakeim and General Koenig are used the titles of streets, hotels, etc. Free French efforts at Bir Hakeim played well into the propaganda campaign as well; Chuchill, de Gaulle, etc. using the even in their speeches, etc. It was also a measure of sweet revenge for patriots of France; and was followed up by General LeClerc’s march across western Africa (defeating Vichy regimes along the way) to meet up with Montgomery’s forces in Libya, and routing Italian forces along the way, General Juin’s victories against German forces in Tunisia, the well over one hundred thousand French soldiers who fought in Italy, the invasion of Riviera and the Rhone river campaigns, and the First French Army’s (nine division’s strong) invasion of southern Germany and the capture of the “Eagle’s Nest” by elements of LeClerc’s 2nd Armored division.