Looking at the French
Published December 29, 2004
Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship With France is a needed text for any Americans who want to understand modern day France. John Miller and Mark Molesky lay out the history of our relationship with France as well as the intellectual basis for the present French Foreign Policy. While most Americans view France support of our revolution as the rule, Miller and Molesky note this was actually the exception. In the years before revolution and shortly after, we were involved in actual combat against the French. For nearly a century before the Revolutionary War, French and their Indian allies conducted a brutal war in the wilderness against Americans. Massacres were considered part of the war with many civilians killed.
Between 1798 and 1800, the United States were involved in an undeclared naval war against France and the War of 1812 could easily have been against the French but due to deft diplomacy by Napoleon, we fought the British instead. During the Civil War, Napoleon III set up a puppet government in Mexico and tried to undermine the Northern effort to subdue the South. After the Civil War, Many Americans including General Grant were ready to invade Mexico to eliminate the French threat there. Due to Secretary of State Steward skillful diplomacy, war was prevented and the Mexican people took care of the French invaders themselves.
One weakness is that the two authors are excessively critical of George Clemenceau's machinations during the Paris Peace talks. I will agree with their assessment about the result of Clemenceau's diplomacy but one should be more sympathetic to Clemenceau's own concern. Clemenceau did not trust the Germans and after seeing his country thrust in two wars with Germany in the previous half-century, he viewed Germany as a permanent threat. Historian Paul Johnson wisely noted that if Germany had won the war, the peace would have been even harsher. When Germany knocked Russia out of the war, the treaty signed with the new Communist rulers was more putative than what the Allies eventually enforced upon Germany.
The failure of Clemenceau's diplomacy was that it depended upon France being prepared to use arms to keep Germany weak. France post World War I foreign policy depended upon the alliances of smaller nations in central Europe to encircle Germany and keep Germany in check. When Hitler rearmed, France had numerous opportunities to deal with Hitler at a minimal cost. Instead, France appeased Germany and the rest is history. Clemenceau true failure was that he overestimated future French leader willingness to act and their failure only exacerbated the failure of Clemenceau's hard line. Clemenceau was only following a policy of ensuring that your enemy never can ever hurt you again. Just as the Romans buried Carthage's, so Clemenceau wanted to bury Germany. He failed. When viewed from his point of view and time, Clemenceau point of view represented sound policy but it did prove disastrous. The lack of will on French leaders during the 1930's ensured the failure of Clemenceau vision.
- Looking at the French
- Published: December 29, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Books
- Writer: Tom Donelson
- Tom Donelson's BC Writer page
- Tom Donelson's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Listed at Advance
I wholeheartedly disagree with this book. They may have gotten a few of the facts right (eg. France not letting the US use their airspace when it comes to bombing Lybia) but the methods and the motivations for doing this are all wrong. The French have never had it out for the United States and their main motivation from before the nintenth century is to counter their old rival Britian. During the French and Indian War we were not Americans but English colonists and the British used Indians on just a grand a scale as the French. French occupation of Mexico had more to do with reversing the shrinking of an imperialistic Empire, and to hold on to the lucrative trade in Mexico (something that America itself has been guilty of- eg. "In the Eagle's Shadow", by Kyle Longley) And that any substancial foothold that France had on North America was either conquored by the British, or bought by the Americans.
France's modern stance opposite the United States might be out of a little jelousy that it is the US and not the French that has their hands in everyone's cookie jar, but mostly what it has to do with is the idea started by French Farmers who are against American's massed produced, geneticaly modified, and heavily subsidized produce industry. And when you compare French history, art and culture to Wal-mart you might get a little sting of loss for the good old days too. I have a degree in History and Franco-US relations and one thing that I cannot stand is a book that just happens to distort the facts for socio-political ends.




The French have always been somewhat of an enigma in their foreign policy efforts - for example, they pulled out of Nato during the cold war which was very strange at the time.
The reality is that the deomcratic countries of the world have far more in common than in differences and need to focus there
Cheers