Looking at the French
Published December 29, 2004
The biggest strength of their book is describing the intellectual basis of French President Chirac's present Gallic foreign policy. Chirac was a follower of General Charles De Gaulle, whose goal was to restore France former glory. De Gaulle organized resistance to the Germans after France defeat in 1940. He was the energy behind Free France but his goals and objectives differ from his allies. There were times that De Gaulle undermined Allies efforts and he proved a difficult man to deal with. Many in France collaborated with the Nazis and resisted the Allies efforts to liberate them. While we have this historic view of mass French resistance to German occupation, the reality is that Vichy France allied themselves with Nazis Germany. Many French not only tolerated German racist policy but even help enforce them. Another problem with the resistance was that many in the resistance were under the control of Moscow. So France during World War II saw many of their leaders allying themselves with the various totalitarian forces of their day. This would have negative effect in the Cold War as communists played significant role in French politics and many intellectuals adopted anti-American position. Some intellectuals developed a love affair with totalitarian governments or at least a tolerance.
De Gaulle was the one figure that survived the war with his reputation intact and in 1958, came back in power to deal with the crisis resulting from the Algerian insurgency. He ended France involvement in Algeria at great risk to himself and helped build France into a modern economy. As a President, he effectively put France's economic house in order after the chaos and failures of the previous governments in the post war era.
He also undermined NATO efforts in the cold war but as Molesky and Miller observed, De Gaulle was able to get away with his third way foreign policy since he knew that American troops would be first line of his defense in Germany. He understood that America would defend France no matter what, so he could engage in idealistic dream of having France "rule Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals."
Molesky and Miller details the many incidents of France opposition to Americans efforts in the Cold War including when President Mitterand refusal to allow American planes to fly over France during the 1986 Libya bombing raid. Even in the first Gulf War, France proved to be an unreliable ally and as the authors noted, their military efforts were minimal during the conflict. We didn't lose anything not having the French fighting at our side in the recent conflict.
- 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