ltmolloy@ima.UUCP (02/10/85)
The French--
Americans often wonder why Parisians have a dislike to tourists.
Specifically U.S. tourists. The origin lies with Charles DeGaulle, who
hated the U.S. from 1943 on.
The Free French were led, supposedly, by DeGaulle in England soon
after France fell to the Germans. Ike, leading the Axis powers knew of the
French incompetence in military matters. The Germans, swiping through
the Maginot line, easily walked over the French Army. DeGaulle, as
incompetent as the rest of the French military, was intentionally ignored
by Eisenhower in the plans of the invasion of Europe.
To say the least DeGaulle was infuriated. Like a fool
DeGaulle pretended to retake Paris, and appeared to liberate the
city of lights. Once he rose to power after the war DeGaulle led
himself on a rampage to alienate the U.S. from the French while
still maintaining strong military ties. NATO membership was
conditional, yet aide was sought. But constantly DeGaulle
defamed the character of the U.S. in his speeches. The
Parisians supported him on his rampage, envious of U.S. wealth.
Most French, outside the Ile-de-France region,are generally nice people.
note-- spontaneous prose, please forgive all grammatical mistakes.
please send responses by postal mail to
Lawrence T. Molloy
Geologic Systems
968 Post Road
Scarsdale, New York 10583trav@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/13/85)
I don't think that France and DeGaulle were perfect all the time. But the description made by the article of ltmolloy@ima.UUCP, <474@ima.UUCP>, seems to me a bit too dark, and inexact. >..... Ike, leading the Axis powers .... Axis powers = Germany, Italy, Japan. >...... French incompetence in military matters. ... We could discuss this point on a general basis. Anyway, between WWI and WWII, the decided strategy was the use of a static line of defense (la ligne Maginot) between Germany and France. It did not work very well in 1940. >... The Germans, swiping through the Maginot line,.... They passed round the Maginot line, through the Ardennes, in neutral Belgium. >... DeGaulle, as incompetent as the rest of the French military, ... Between WWI and WWII, DeGaulle was fighting the French military establishment. The tactic he proposed was to be used by the Germans and the Allied forces, with some success. > ...DeGaulle was intentionally ignored by Eisenhower ... You can add Roosevelt too. DeGaulle was denied any representativity during the war, when he was recognized by Churchill and all the French resistants (except may be the communists). > To say the least DeGaulle was infuriated. Sure! The US plan for France after the liberation was to administer this country in the same way as Germany: as an occupied land. At the same time the allied forces landed in Normandy (with some French troups), the DeGaulle's administration arrived too. In all liberated towns, there were the Free French administration and the US military one. After a while, the US agreed to let DeGaulle alone. >DeGaulle pretended to retake Paris, and appeared to liberate the >city of lights. While a lot of French resistants were struggling in Paris, the Allied plan was to avoid to fight in Paris. The fear for the French was that the German would destroy the insurgents, and the town. This was indeed the nazis plan. Fortunately, the German officer in charge of the town (Von Schaultitz) did not applied the orders of Hitler to destroy the town, and the French troops entered the town. > NATO membership was conditional, yet aide was sought. But constantly DeGaulle DeGaulle was president of France mainly from 1958 to 1969. During this period, he decided France to stay in NATO, but not in the military organisation. He was looking toward a kind of neutralism between the two blocks. In case of crisis (Berlin, 196?), he standed firmly on the side of Kennedy. At this time, the US were not giving any aide, as far as I know. -- Pascal Traverse UCLA Computer Science Department 3732 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024 // (213) 825-4885 ARPA: trav@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!trav
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/15/85)
Perhaps we need a new group: net.history.folk :-). As an example of
an article that would fit there, I submit this extract of a longer one.
===============
The Free French were led, supposedly, by DeGaulle in England soon
after France fell to the Germans. Ike, leading the Axis powers knew of the
French incompetence in military matters. The Germans, swiping through
the Maginot line, easily walked over the French Army. DeGaulle, as
incompetent as the rest of the French military, was intentionally ignored
by Eisenhower in the plans of the invasion of Europe.
===============
How many historical errors can be packed into 6 lines? The Free French
were not led by Col. De Gaulle until his political manipulations and
PR exercises made it happen. I've forgotten who was. De Gaulle's
contribution was to insist that for the glory of France the Free French
should not be integrated with the other Allied (not Axis -- that was
Marshal Petain) troops. It was Churchill rather than Eisenhower who
tried to keep De Gaulle out of the action, not because of his
incompetence, but because he was not trusted (he might abort an
operation by launching his own in advance, for example). Also he
was not trusted politically, as a post-war force in France. Eisenhower
didn't come into the war leadership until quite late, anyway.
There's lots of folk history on the net. It's fun to read, and
probably does no harm. It helps net readers to understand what
bases people have for their other comments, so it may do some good.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtjca@abnji.UUCP (james armstrong) (02/18/85)
>I don't think that France and DeGaulle were perfect all the time. >But the description made by the article of ltmolloy@ima.UUCP, <474@ima.UUCP>, >seems to me a bit too dark, and inexact. I agree it was not very precise. >>..... Ike, leading the Axis powers .... >Axis powers = Germany, Italy, Japan. (Perhaps he was thinking of now? Axis was an enemy of communism, we are enemies of communism, therefore the Axis was our ally :-) >>...... French incompetence in military matters. ... >We could discuss this point on a general basis. Anyway, between WWI and WWII, >the decided strategy was the use of a static line of defense (la ligne Maginot) >between Germany and France. It did not work very well in 1940. French incompetence in military matters: 1. 100 Years War 2. French & Indian War 3. Franco Prussian War 4. World War One 5. World War Two 6. Indochina 7. Algeria need I go on? >>... The Germans, swiping through the Maginot line,.... >They passed round the Maginot line, through the Ardennes, in neutral Belgium. The Maginot Line extended to the English Channel. It was just not finished (Or for that matter, started along much of its length). Picture the US now stating that our only deterent to nuclear attack is the Star Wars system. You say, "But it's not finished!" That was the Maginot Line. >>... DeGaulle, as incompetent as the rest of the French military, ... >Between WWI and WWII, DeGaulle was fighting the French military establishment. >The tactic he proposed was to be used by the Germans and the Allied forces, >with some success. > >> ...DeGaulle was intentionally ignored by Eisenhower ... >You can add Roosevelt too. DeGaulle was denied any representativity during >the war, when he was recognized by Churchill and all the French resistants >(except may be the communists). DeGaulle was not liked or supported by much of the French resistance until he was successful. Churchill liked him and selected him as the head of the French resistance, even though there were people of higher rank who wanted to resist the Axis. History has shown that Churchill did not make a bad choice. (I suggest you read his account of the invasion of French North Africa.) The problem with much of the French resistance was that they were more anti-Ally than anti-Nazi. Ships of the French Navy engaged ships of the Royal Navy near Dakar. Why? Admiral Darlan of the French Navy was an extreme anglophobe. Darlan eventually did the right thing. When Germany was occupying the rest of France in 1943, he gave the orders to scuttle the French Fleet in Toulon. The size of the fleet would have had a substantial effect on the war effort in Egypt and Africa, and later in the invasion of Italy. >> To say the least DeGaulle was infuriated. >Sure! The US plan for France after the liberation was to administer this >country in the same way as Germany: as an occupied land. At the same time the >allied forces landed in Normandy (with some French troups), the >DeGaulle's administration arrived too. In all liberated towns, there were >the Free French administration and the US military one. After a while, >the US agreed to let DeGaulle alone. Until the invasion of France, much of the French were collaborating with the Nazis. The Free French were in the minority. There were very few problems for the Germans occupying France, as opposed to the Germans in Czechoslavokia, Poland, Norway, etc. >>DeGaulle pretended to retake Paris, and appeared to liberate the >>city of lights. >While a lot of French resistants were struggling in Paris, the Allied >plan was to avoid to fight in Paris. The fear for the French was that >the German would destroy the insurgents, and the town. This was indeed >the nazis plan. Fortunately, the German officer in charge of the town >(Von Schaultitz) did not applied the orders of Hitler to destroy the >town, and the French troops entered the town. The Allies fear was for a very stiff defence of Paris which would ruin the city. The Germans could have holed up in Paris and slowed the war by 6 months. >> NATO membership was conditional, yet aide was sought. But constantly >>DeGaulle was president of France mainly from 1958 to 1969. During this >period, he decided France to stay in NATO, but not in the military >organisation. He was looking toward a kind of neutralism between the >two blocks. In case of crisis (Berlin, 196?), he standed firmly on the >side of Kennedy. At this time, the US were not giving any aide, as far as >I know. No military aide, but France received alot of economic aide for a long time after the war. I feel that the French are suffering from a severe national inferiority complex. (I am not a psychiatrist, so am probably misusing these words.) Throughout much of their history, they were humiliated by the English. Eventually, the ideals of the French and English grew together, hence the alliance in WWI. Here, though, the complex gets worse. France was numerically strong, but without the English and later American troops, they would have been crushed. In WWII, they were quickly crushed by a numerically inferior but better organized Germany, and the English speaking peoples had to get them out of their mess again. I think they resent that. Napoleon, you say? Wasn't he beaten by a numerically inferior British force under the command of the Duke of Wellington at some town in Belguim? Waterloo, wasn't it? This national resentment goes a long way to explaining their actions with respect to NATO, military aide, etc. Just to "get back" at their allies and saviors. -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. { ihnp4 || allegra || mcnc || cbosgb } !abnji!jca "She's real enough. Android's legs don't blister."
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (02/20/85)
Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo by a combined Anglo-Dutch-Prussian
force which outnumbered the French by a nearly 2-1 margin. The
reversal of Napoleonic France's fortunes in the early nineteenth
century is directly attributable to the degree to which Russians,
Prussians, Austrians, and British outnumbered the French. The fact
is that even with the dramatic numerical advantages enjoyed by the
anti-French coalitions which arose from the Revolution to the Congress
of Vienna, France was only defeated after her enemies had learned
enough from 15 years of consistent defeat to reasonably imitate
French methods.
The French have a glorious history of military incompetence, as does
each and every other country (no exceptions!!!!), but the francophobes
need not exaggerate their case.......
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidtrav@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/22/85)
About France and the United States.
(As I am quitting these countries (USA & Netland), I will post
a global point of view, and let you flame it, if you need it, without me.)
Let us define what is a leading power, as this notion is
important to understand the relationship between France and the USA.
A leading power, according me, is one of the most powerful nation,
on a cultural, economic, and military point of view. The status of
being a leading power implies from a less powerful country two things:
- fear and hope,
- attraction and rejection.
For example:
- fear of being invaded, of not having a free choice, to have
its culture degraded, fear of economic concurrency from the leading power
- hope of being freed, and helped (like with the Marshall plan
after WWII) by the leading power
- attraction by the power and its manifestation, including
self-confidence, feeling that history is going in your direction,...,
- rejection of a model coming from outside
Now, consider that for centuries, France (and England and a few others
sometimes) was a leading power. Consider also that in 2 centuries, the
USA from being leaded by France are now leading the world (including France).
I think this feeling of having being passed exacerbates the
fear/hope and attraction/rejection between the leaded France and
the American leader. If it seems that the rejection (fear is mainly
visible as a rejection) is the most widely recognized, don't forget
the hope-attraction aspect. It is particularly lively in France, even
if it is not the kind of things one shows to an American.
--
Pascal Traverse
UCLA Computer Science Department
3732 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024 // (213) 825-4885
ARPA: trav@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!travdbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/22/85)
I'm not sure if this belongs on net.politics, but someone mentioned the great numerical advantage of the Anglo-Dutch-Prussian alliance against Napoleon at Waterloo. I must hasten, for the sake of historical accuracy, to say the French had the Prussians and the forces under Wellington split. The real failure was not Napoleon's at all, but Marshall Ney, who while his Emperor was sick, ordered an ill-fated cavalry charge right into the teeth of the British Infantry. Needless to say, Napoleon was not amused. DAVE BROWN ================================================================================ WHO SAID HISTORY IS IRRELEVANT? ================================================================================