To the French: Lafayette we are here, where are you?

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Nope they supported it to screw the British plain and simple it was in their national interests.

Then explain why many of them did it in violation of a direct order from their King? Explain why they aided the revolution 8 years before it was official policy. Explain why their writings and memoirs clearly indicate that they genuinely believed in the cause and why most of those same individuals took part in their own revolution. Individual aristocrats and especially the bourgouisie didn't care about the British. The beef with the brits was a state matter which was not displayed on an individual level outside of monarchy. They were plotting against their own government..they had little care for national interest due to the ever growing popularity of a coup against the monarchy.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Then explain why many of them did it in violation of a direct order from their King? Explain why they aided the revolution 8 years before it was official policy. Explain why their writings and memoirs clearly indicate that they genuinely believed in the cause and why most of those same individuals took part in their own revolution. Individual aristocrats and especially the bourgouisie didn't care about the British. The beef with the brits was a state matter which was not displayed on an individual level outside of monarchy. They were plotting against their own government..they had little care for national interest due to the ever growing popularity of a coup against the monarchy.

I was referring to the state sponsored support not that of individuals.

 

[iamjack]

How many Frenchman died and sacrificed for our cause and have unmarked graves in a field somewhere? You probably don't even know.

2112.

From an authoritarian regime.

Not 20 years removed from getting their asses kicked by the British in the 7 years war.

Shortly thereafter which, they engaged in a democratic revolution inspired by us and the economic weakening of the state brought on by its involvement in the u.s., among numerous other economic blunders.

Shortly thereafter that, they ironically elevate Napoleon, a figure not unlike Adolf Hitler who this day is still lauded by the French as a national icon (and by yourself appearently), and institute a violent imperial dictatorship.

After their Empire gets crushed they put back the monarchy they so claimed to despise, albeit a different dynasty.

They get tired of that king and have themselves another revolution.

They elect yet another Bonaparte, he overthrows the democracy, and the Imperial Facism is back. People are fine with this for 18 years.

The grand French empire gets its ass kicked again by Prussians of all people. France plays the Republic card one more time.

In its usual unshakable dogma of liberty and social equality, France begins a campaign of colonialism.

WWI breaks out, with the aid of Britan, Russia, the United States and a host of other nations, France finally wins something.

Thorugh incompentant handling of post-WWI europe, including a familiar French inability to uphold international agreements, Hitler invades Poland, Britan and France declare war on Germany. Nobody makes a serious military act for 8 months.

Hitler attacks France once, France as a nation ceases to exist.

While sequestered in Great Britan, another French hero, Charles Du Galle is quoted as saying "France has no friends, only interests" in the most unusual instance of "crying out for help" in recorded history.

After the war, in a desparate attempt to salvage national dignity, recolonization of Indochina is attempted. It fails. The Vietnam war and general prosperity ensues.

Finally, after entering the 21st century in near total political impotency, France opposes war against Iraq in order to protect a significant financial investment in the Saddam regime.


Nations, by their nature, act in self interest. There is no base amorality in it, and every country in the world has done it. Now, I concessed the United States and France had equal motives in their assistance of one another, and each had facilitated the other's existance. But when when confronted with the accountable reality of America's sacrifice for the French, you ignored it and drew the debate on a tangent towards the events of some hundreds of years ago, not even comperable in terms of scale, and as illustrated here, made a miniscule detraction from France's economic/industrial power, supported by the fact that Napoleon damn near took over Europe not long afterward. Furthermore, you would have us believe that these 200 year old events led directly to and/or justify a contemporary hatred of America?

Regarding anyone genuinly interested in the drift of this thread: This person's belligerent posts are result of preoccupied thinking. He is more interested in defending the mythos of his fantastic image of French liberal infallability then answer the question imposed by trajan: what is the cause of the French reactionary hostility towards the United States? The simple answer is that it's a sense of inadecuacy and insecurity brought on by the centuries of disasterous social, economic, military and political policy that's denied them of being the great world power they percieve themselves to be.

 

[Diogenes]

iamjack: Very well said. :applaud

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

2112.

I'm suprised you know that.

From an authoritarian regime.

No. Louis XVI was far from authoritarian and the Frenchmen who fought in our revolution did so against orders from the King for several years.

Shortly thereafter which, they engaged in a democratic revolution inspired by us and the economic weakening of the state brought on by its involvement in the u.s., among numerous other economic blunders.

Not entirely. The French revolution had been brewing for a long time. It wasn't until after the American revolution that the french revolution shifted from political cornering and whispers to physical action. In terms of the debt yes. France was already teetering on the edge of bankrupsy when Louis XVI inheirited the throne. The American Revolution pushed it over the edge.

Shortly thereafter that, they ironically elevate Napoleon, a figure not unlike Adolf Hitler who this day is still lauded by the French as a national icon (and by yourself appearently), and institute a violent imperial dictatorship.

Napoleon was FAR from Adolf Hitleresque. He never absorbed territories like Hitler and he never committed genocide. When Napoleon defeated his enemies he had the option of demanding anything he wanted from them and what he demanded was peace. He placed the Austrian Emperor back on his throne and granted soveirgnty to all of his terrirories east of the Rhine as conditions of the peace treaty. England, Russia, Austria, Prussia, and Sweden broke that treaty and restarted the war..not Napoleon. Napoleon also made tons of civil changes in France for the better.

After their Empire gets crushed they put back the monarchy they so claimed to despise, albeit a different dynasty.

After Napoleon was exiled to Elba, England placed the self proclaimed Louis XVIII on the throne..not the French. They didn't want him which is why they sided with Napoleon when he returned from exile.

They get tired of that king and have themselves another revolution.

After Napoleon was exiled to St. Helena, France became a republic again. They gave his son the title of Emperor of France and Rome but he never acctually ruled. Napoleon II never played any role in the government itself...he was a figurehead and for less than 1 month.

The grand French empire gets its ass kicked again by Prussians of all people. France plays the Republic card one more time.

The Prussians were a major world power at the time. France was not.

In its usual unshakable dogma of liberty and social equality, France begins a campaign of colonialism.

And?

WWI breaks out, with the aid of Britan, Russia, the United States and a host of other nations, France finally wins something.

Finally? :lol: Napoleon I controlled nearly all of continental Europe and a big chunk of North America until he sold it to us. In fact, the only reason Napoleon lost at the Battle of Waterloo is because Blucher arrived and flanked him, one of his generals went AWAL, Grouchy was 30 minutes late and didn't enter the battle until 1.5 hours later, and another one of his generals left promising to bring back reinforcements but really fled the battlefield never to return.

Hitler attacks France once, France as a nation ceases to exist.

France still existed. Ever hear of Vichi France?

While sequestered in Great Britan, another French hero, Charles Du Galle is quoted as saying "France has no friends, only interests" in the most unusual instance of "crying out for help" in recorded history.

The U.S. was notorious for not comming to the aid of it's allies until it was too late and only if it benefited the U.S. What would you expect him to say? At least he had the balls to admit the true foreign policy of every nation on earth.

After the war, in a desparate attempt to salvage national dignity, recolonization of Indochina is attempted. It fails. The Vietnam war and general prosperity ensues.

So?

Finally, after entering the 21st century in near total political impotency, France opposes war against Iraq in order to protect a significant financial investment in the Saddam regime.

There are many reasons why France opposes the Iraq war and that is one of them. Who cares if France was doing buisiness with Saddam? We were too.

But when when confronted with the accountable reality of America's sacrifice for the French, you ignored it and drew the debate on a tangent towards the events of some hundreds of years ago, not even comperable in terms of scale, and as illustrated here, made a miniscule detraction from France's economic/industrial power, supported by the fact that Napoleon damn near took over Europe not long afterward.

The accountable reality is that the U.S. wouldn't have come into existence if the French hadn't aided us. Theres no comparrison because the Frenchmen who aided us did so because they believed in the cause..they had nothing to gain from it. They aided us when we needed it most..we ignored their plight in WW2 until we needed it most. It's a battle of principles.

Furthermore, you would have us believe that these 200 year old events led directly to and/or justify a contemporary hatred of America?

The French hold grudges against themselves concerning their revolution even today. The U.S. really knifed France in the back after our revolution ended and all the way through WW2. The French still talk about it and still feel betrayed that we, as their ally, refused to come to their aid and allowed the Nazis to take over. It's not a hatred of America..it's a strong dissagreement with American foreign policy.

Regarding anyone genuinly interested in the drift of this thread: This person's belligerent posts are result of preoccupied thinking. He is more interested in defending the mythos of his fantastic image of French liberal infallability then answer the question imposed by trajan: what is the cause of the French reactionary hostility towards the United States?

And you're more interested in spouting nationalistic hogwash and bashing the French than researching the real history. The grudge is definatley a dominant factor in their hostility. You also fail to mention that the hostility ends for the most part at the edges of Paris.

 

[iamjack]

From the thread "The Military Defeat of Imperial USA"

Western Expansionism was equivelent to imperialism. We conquered Japan, forced a new constitution to our liking down their throat ie forced a change from imperial democracy to a democratic republic

Then,

When Napoleon defeated his enemies he had the option of demanding anything he wanted from them and what he demanded was peace. He placed the Austrian Emperor back on his throne and granted soveirgnty to all of his terrirories east of the Rhine as conditions of the peace treaty.

And in response to France's disasterous colonialism,

So?

It occurs to me that, seeing as NN obviously is more interested in defending French national identity then establishing the cause of French resentment of the United States, it would make more sense to make a case study of his reactions.

Notice how he makes accusations of nationalism while defending French policy by any means. Note among them the continued insistance that France had absolutly nothing to gain from American independance relying on a vauge sentiment of a select few to emacipate the entirety of French attitudes. But most significant is double standard in regards to national interest and imperialism so-called. He will decry extention of American influence towards the institution of representitive government, while endorsing the original nationalist imperial crusade that began with the extermination of the democracy brought about by the revolution. He appreciates the hostile, unilateral sentiment of du galle, which to a cirtan extent holds a truth that I expressed in my last post, yet he condemns American trade alignment with the British during the 19th century as "constantly stabbing the French in the back" and cites the time spent by America marshalling of its military force prior to its entry into WW2 purely as it effected France.

From this one begins to understand the frustration of the French national identity. Moreso it tells of the French liberal ideal, espousing liberty and democracy while supporting the right to soveriegnty of opressive, despotic nations like Iraq and China with no civil representation at all.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

It occurs to me that, seeing as NN obviously is more interested in defending French national identity then establishing the cause of French resentment of the United States, it would make more sense to make a case study of his reactions.

You fail to understand the French and their history so you cannot possibly understand the root cause of the dissagreement.

Notice how he makes accusations of nationalism while defending French policy by any means. Note among them the continued insistance that France had absolutly nothing to gain from American independance relying on a vauge sentiment of a select few to emacipate the entirety of French attitudes.

What exactly did those individual Frenchmen who aided our revolution on their own accord have to gain?

But most significant is double standard in regards to national interest and imperialism so-called. He will decry extention of American influence towards the institution of representitive government, while endorsing the original nationalist imperial crusade that began with the extermination of the democracy brought about by the revolution.

We all know what isolationism and imperialism got Napoleon. A one way trip to St. Helena and the destruction of all he had worked so hard to achieve. Thats why I don't like seeing America taking on such policies.

He appreciates the hostile, unilateral sentiment of du galle, which to a cirtan extent holds a truth that I expressed in my last post, yet he condemns American trade alignment with the British during the 19th century as "constantly stabbing the French in the back" and cites the time spent by America marshalling of its military force prior to its entry into WW2 purely as it effected France.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The ways America stabbed France in the back include the FACT that America never honored it's agreements and contracts and never directly aided our ally until it benefited them. The French didn't wait until the British won in our revolution to help us..they came before that was a possibility. Our participation in WW2 is entirely the opposite. We waited until France had lost to the Nazis to help them. The only reason we joined WW2 is because of Pearl Harbor.

From this one begins to understand the frustration of the French national identity. Moreso it tells of the French liberal ideal, espousing liberty and democracy while supporting the right to soveriegnty of opressive, despotic nations like Iraq and China with no civil representation at all.

Unless they are a direct threat to us I don't see a reason why we should have gone to war. Napoleon didn't start any war..it was a continuation of the war Austria, England, and Prussia brought upon France.

 

[Diogenes]

What exactly did those individual Frenchmen who aided our revolution on their own accord have to gain?

Perhaps it was knowing that they put their lives at risk to defend a principle they believed in, much like the US soldiers who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq and choose to re-enlist.

The French didn't wait until the British won in our revolution to help us..they came before that was a possibility. Our participation in WW2 is entirely the opposite. We waited until France had lost to the Nazis to help them. The only reason we joined WW2 is because of Pearl Harbor.

Did France ask for our help before the war broke out, or did the French government doggedly pursue its standard policy of appeasement and negotiation until it was too late?

Unless they are a direct threat to us I don't see a reason why we should have gone to war. Napoleon didn't start any war..it was a continuation of the war Austria, England, and Prussia brought upon France.

By "us" may I assume you mean the French government.?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Perhaps it was knowing that they put their lives at risk to defend a principle they believed in, much like the US soldiers who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq and choose to re-enlist.

Given your other posts, may I assume that you've changed your mind on that particular issue?

Did France ask for our help before the war broke out, or did the French government doggedly pursue its standard policy of appeasement and negotiation until it was too late?

It doesn't matter whether or not the French asked for our help. The duty of
an ally is to give aid whenever and wherever it is needed especially in times of war. Not to sit back with a pair of opera glasses and watch your ally's world come crashing down around it's ears and allow your enemy to accumulate more resources and territory.
I think you have a very twisted view of the world..you seem view diplomacy as a bad thing. Even the U.S. has a "standard policy of appeasement and negotiation" as you put it..just look at North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Vietnam, China, Russia, etc.

By "us" may I assume you mean the French government.?

I meant the U.S. government..being a U.S. citizen and all. That logic can also be applied to the French and I believe that is part of the logic they choose to use.

 

[Diogenes]

Given your other posts, may I assume that you've changed your mind on that particular issue?

No.

It doesn't matter whether or not the French asked for our help. The duty of an ally is to give aid whenever and wherever it is needed especially in times of war.

It does matter. I have very strong objections to another country trying to tell us what to do for our own good, and therefore I won't impose my views on another country. We shouldn't "help" anyone unless they request it.

And I appreciate your definition of the duty of an ally, becaue it proves that the French are definitely not our ally.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

And I appreciate your definition of the duty of an ally, becaue it proves that the French are definitely not our ally.

How so? The French have come to our aid in times of war on numerous occassions.

 

[Diogenes]

When did the French Republic do that?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

When did the French Republic do that?

Afghanistan, WW2 (Yes, many Frenchmen did help overthrow the Vichi government), etc.

 

[Diogenes]

I'll give you Afghanistan (for what the French help was worth), but not WWII - we were helping the French reclaim their country (and doing most of the heavy lifting), not the other way around.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I'll give you Afghanistan (for what the French help was worth), but not WWII - we were helping the French reclaim their country (and doing most of the heavy lifting), not the other way around.

There were a great many Frenchmen who fought against the Vichi government. With our aid they ultimatley prevailed. The French were still fighting to reclaim their country from the Nazis but those oposed were greatly weakened by the Nazis and Vichi government to the point that they couldn't win unless the U.S. stepped in. Much like our revolution..we could not have won without the French and the French could not have overthrown the Vichi government without the U.S.

 

[nkgupta80]

I'll give you Afghanistan (for what the French help was worth), but not WWII - we were helping the French reclaim their country (and doing most of the heavy lifting), not the other way around.

WWII was pretty much about national interests when it came down to it. Yes the indirect result was us helping the french. However, the government, like in all wars, had basic motives that addressed only our nation's interests. This of course included economy. To most historians, WWI and WWII marked the giant shift of wealth from imperialistic Europe to the US, and this event was definately not an accidental result.

 

[Diogenes]

However, the government, like in all wars, had basic motives that addressed only our nation's interests.

That much is always true of all governments all the time, but it is always a matter of "perceived" national interest evaluated by comparing required effort against expected benefits.

There was a time when our small wars were resolved by overthrowing an unfriendly tribal leader and replacing him with a friendly tribal leader, and this practice continued into the 20th century with western support of various thugs and tyrants around the world. The system fails when we are confronted with a hostile ideology like communism or fascism, and our approach after WWII was to reconstruct the defeated societies as representative governments responsible to the people (e.g., Germany, Japan and Italy). The problem today is that the French are taking the old short-sighted view while the coalition realizes that Islamist extremism requires a makeover of the societies that spawn terrorism

 

[Iriemon]

I get a kick out of these "bash the French" type posts.

The French refused to rush into the Iraq war, because they correctly questioned whether Iraq had WMDs, and wanted to give the inspectors more time to determine that question.

The Bush Admin couldn't wait (probably because they probably knew the truth and would knew they would lose the justification they wanted to occupy Iraq if the inspectors proved Saddam had no WMDs) and rushed in. And guess what ... the French were right. There were no WMDs. And that has the neocons so damn mad. As usual with this group, when they have made a mistake, rather than own up to it, they go into their natural pit bull mode, and attack.

So we get posts like "Lafayette, we are here, where are you."

And we hear how we "saved" France in WWII. Now, I have never met a Frenchman that was not grateful that American men died fighting Germans in France. But let's take off our self-righteous yankee glasses and look at the true facts for a minute, shall we?

September 1939. Germany invades Poland. Britain and France have the balls to stand up and declare war on Germany.

And What does America do? Nothing. Stays neutral. Lafayette, where were we?

June, 1940, having made a secret pact with Stalin's Russia, and blitzkrieged the Russians, the Germans turn west toward France and invade French territory. Their march thru the Ardennes catches the Allies by surprise and hundreds of thousands of French troops are surrounded. The British beeline for the coast and get the hell out of dodge.

And what does America do in France's desparate hour of need? Nothing. Stays neutral. Lafayette, where were we?

France surrenders. For a year and a half, France is occupoied by Nazi Germany.

And what does America do while France is occupied by the Nazis? Nothing. Lafayette, where were we?

Only after Hitler declares war on Germany does America declare war on Germany and begin the preparations to invade Europe, which finally takes place 2 1/2 years later.

The constant sanctamonious "we saved you in WWII and you owe us" stuff I hear directed towards France rings a little hollow.

And let's look at the record of French deployments in the last 15 years:

French deployments since 1990

Iraq I

France sent about 25,000 military personnel to the Gulf War ... and sustained 226 battlefield casualties.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/senate/appx_oo.pdf

That total included 11,000 troops.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/861164.stm

With enemies like this, who needs friends, right?

Iraq II

France was prepared to send troops in 2003. They wanted to give inspectors more time. The US Govt wouldn’t wait, because they "knew" there were hundreds of tons of WMDs and a nuclear program with "reconstituted nuclear weapons in Iraq.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0107france.htm

Afghanistan

- A total of 1,800 French troops are involved in the stabilization of Afghanistan, including the French Navy’s contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom.

- 900 French troops are deployed in that country as part of the International Security Assistance Force. France is also playing a significant role in training the Afghan national army, alongside the U.S. and the United Kingdom, having initially organized three Afghan battalions of 500 men and being presently involved in the training of all Afghan officers. Additionally, 200 special troops are involved alongside American troops in the fight against the remnants of the Taliban regime in southern Afghanistan.

- In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, France offered its military resources and capabilities to support the American-led military campaign, Operation Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan. Immediately, the exchanges of information between our naval commanders increased, particularly in the Indian Ocean, thus intensifying the fight against all types of trafficking.

- Since October 21, 2001, French reconnaissance aircraft and air tankers have contributed to the air campaign over Afghanistan. They were reinforced from the winter of 2001 to the summer of 2002 by French naval aviation forces and French Air Force transport planes and fighters. Indeed, France was the only country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan in direct support of American ground troops, in particular during Operation Anaconda. From October 23, 2001 to September 30, 2002, a total of 12,000 flying hours were conducted in support of operations in Afghanistan. The Mirage 2000D and Super Etendard destroyed 33 targets linked to Al Qaeda or the Taliban regime in direct support of American Special Forces. Today, 130 military are based in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, helping to operate the airport and supporting 2 transport aircraft engaged in the support of the French contingent in Afghanistan.

- French forces arrived early on the ground in Afghanistan. From December 2, 2001 to January 27, 2002, a reinforced company secured in Mazar-e-Sharif the detachment of U.S. engineers repairing the airfield in order to fly in humanitarian assistance. In total, some 5,500 French soldiers were sent to the region.

- The French Navy continues to patrol the Gulf of Aden and the Gulf of Oman. It has been monitoring commercial sea lanes, detecting and boarding suspicious vessels, as well as escorting coalition boats through the area since December 2001. France is the second largest contributor to the maritime task force in charge of this mission

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/defense.asp

Bosnia: The French sector

There are about 14,750 troops in the southern French sector, out of a projected 16,000.

The 7,500 French troops who served as peacekeepers in Bosnia will remain under NATO command.

There are an additional 4,500 French troops outside Bosnia, some based at sea, others at air bases in Italy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/bosnia/feb96/nbos150.htm


Haiti

Meanwhile, some 200 French troops in France's overseas department of Antilles in the Caribbean region will join the international force in Haiti in the coming hours and about 100 gendarmes will arrive in the crisis-hit island on Monday, said a spokesman of the staff of the French armies.

The French troops will protect French nationals on the island. A spokeswoman of the French presidency said France is ready to participate if an international peacekeeping force is to be deployed.

http://english.people.com.cn/200403/01/eng20040301_136246.shtml

Congo and the Ivory Coast

The French commitment to lead a force of more than 1,000 international troops came weeks after U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan appealed to French President Jacques Chirac to intervene in the Ituri province of Congo to stop a bloody power struggle between the ethnic Hemma and Lendu militia. It coincided with a report by a senior U.N. humanitarian official who described scenes of atrocities and mounting chaos during a recent visit to Bunia, the capital of Ituri.

The deployment of French troops in Congo would mark the second time in the past year that France has sent troops to Africa to quell a conflict. France already has 4,000 troops in Ivory Coast.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/CongoFrenchTroopstoInterveneMay29.htm


Chad-Dafour

France's ambassador to Khartoum said Sunday the deployment of 200 French troops in eastern Chad was on purely humanitarian grounds to protect the refugees from Sudan's strife-torn province of Darfur.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/0/d5ce6e5e8716704dc1256eeb00245116?OpenDocument

Zaire

1991 -- Zaire. On September 25-27, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa, U.S. Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Mnshasa. U.S. planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic and hauled back American citizens and third country nationals from locations outside Zaire.

http://www.supportourtroops.us/Military_History_support_our_troops.htm

Other Africa

5,000 French troops are stationed in Djibouti, Gabon and Senegal under bilateral agreements

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/defense.asp


+++

The French have been one of our most consistent and strongest allies in NATO thru the cold war and right through Afganistan. Their troops have died fighting next to ours. They have been willing to stand up and send their troops (recognized as some of the best in the world) when circumstances warrant it.

But one time, in Iraq, the French say "let's wait a minute", our leader says to them "FU", and it turns out the French were right. And now we get the neocons who just can't stand the fact they are wrong and can't admit it so they bash bash bash this proud ally of ours.

It makes me sick and embarrased to be an American and hear this crap.