As the French celebrate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Paris from Nazi occupation , it seems to me entirely appropriate to draw attention to a rather more sanguine view of French history.
French-bashing has always been something of an indulgent British cultural habit that appears to have caught on in the USA where I get the impression that it is fast becoming a national pastime. Speaking for myself, I find most of its manifestations to be crass and juvenile but that should not deter any serious and critical examination of the key role played by the French state in much of the darkness and turmoil that has so overshadowed the 20th Century.
Professor Christie Davies has done just that in a forthright and trenchant essay for the Bruges Group:
The French defeat in 1870 decisively confirmed France’s decline from being the most powerful nation in Continental Europe to that of a feeble and unimportant country rapidly falling behind Germany in population, economic importance and military strength. A decent and sensible country would have accepted that its relegation to the second division was inevitable but the French now tried to drag every country they could find into fighting the Germans. The French threw enormous sums of money into the economic development and thus military strengthening of Russia, then lost it all and nearly ruined themselves. The French shamelessly manipulated the guileless British into thinking they ought to be at the heart of Europe even though they never got further than the Somme. This delusion of an enfeebled France that it somehow had a historic right to dominate Europe, if not by force then by chicanery, is still the source of many of our more recent problems.
As I am not a historian I cannot vouch for the accuracy (or otherwise) of the various factual claims and I suppose it behoves me to point out that the Bruges Group is a think-tank staffed mainly by Conservatives who take a famously hostile view of the European Union.
That caveat aside, Professor Davies essay makes for a compelling, tragic and utterly damning read.
Makes sense. Henry Kissinger blamed French chauvinism for their lack of success. Because France must be the senior parter or one of the senior parnters in an alliance for its own pride, they will seek weaker nations, or will not play on any one elses team.
Also, in French political decsions, only France matters, and the rest of the world is dammed, to put it bluntly. Makes their bleating about having their opionons heard in American poltical discourse seem rather two faced, don’t ya think.
Hehe, you know you’re in a country with a long memory when you’re still fighting Napoleon (and haven’t yet entirely forgiven France for the hundred years war, or that 1066 business either).
I demand that you immediately retract your scandalous suggestion that Americans have only recently taken up the fine art of Frog bashing!
We Yanks have a long and distinguished record of this noble pursuit. We’re not only better at it than our good friends the British, but – more importantly – we enjoy it more. While you regard it as a guilty pleasure, we aren’t fettered by any such feelings.
Take back your insult or face the consequences!
You should also read THE COLLAPSE OF THE THRID REPUBLIC by William L. Shirer. A truly schlorly work by one of the great factual writers of the WWII era. His RISE AND FALL OF THE THRID REICH is the definitive work on that subject still. Read anything he wrote, you will be engrossed and informed.
France became enfeebled when Voltaire’s followers were put under the guillotine, long before 1870. Considering their fate, it is obvious that he would have lost his head too, had he lived a decade longer.
Although he is not remembered for it much today, he was one, perhaps even the most important one, of the popularizers of Newton’s physics. He explained it to the reading public and argued for it against the ‘french physics’ of Descartes.
England paid attention to Newton. Prussia paid attention to Newton (perhaps in the final analysis, that is the most significant consequence of Voltaire’s stay at the court of Frederick the Great). France did not.
England became economically and militarily powerful because she industrialized. Later Prussia did too. France remained a largely agrarian country. Even today, her farmers are a lobby that cripples her.
Perhaps this is all a coincidence. Or not.
Still, you have to wonder why all of France’s neighbours make a national pastime of Frog-bashing… Where there’s smoke there’s a fire, as they say.
French bashing is ok, but glossing over German militarism, nazism and general barbarity is not; that’s quackery, or worse.
It was Germany who attacked in WW1, not France. It was German idiotic militarism that started both WWs. It was Germany who commited the most horrendous crimes and atrocities in history (with only the communists contesting that title, not the French).
Professor Davies argues that Nazism could have occurred in France too, that it was ripe for it. That is idle speculation, Nazism occurred in Germany, not in France.
This article is not a serious historical article, it’s propaganda and invective, though part of France-bashing in it is, maybe, partially justified.
You know, I never cared for Kissinger after having first met him, but I think he fairly accurately spoke with respect to the franco-chauvinism of its government.
Re: what Felix said. Isn’t it somewhat funny how we can make fun of a country across the pond and it is good fodder, but attempting to make fun of one next-door often attracts cries of “racism” or xenaphobia? It sure ruins my fun, since I almost equally enjoy the fine sport of Canadian government bashing.
I will also still equally enjoy visiting with the French and Canadians of better sensibilities whom I have long grown to appreciate.
Jacob,
In fairness, I don’t think the author is attempting to ‘gloss over’ nazi barbarity. He merely seeks to establish that France was every bit as much a candidate for it as Germany.
I am not an admirer of French politics, but I would like to make a few points that might be considered to be pro French.
Many modern industries were more advanced in France than in Germany in 1914. And although it is true that French agriculture was backward (an evil fruit of the revolution – with its doctrine that an estate must be split up among the sons on the death of a farmer) the German peasants and even the German Junkers were hardly wonderful either – they aLso hid behind trade walls.
It is true that “heavy industry” (iron, steel, coal) was less impressive in France than in Germany – but that may well have to with the fact that pre 1914 France had rather less coal and iron ore resources than Germany.
Even in heavy industry – France produced more shells and better shells than Germany in World War One (Germany went in for more state control during the war – the so called “war socialism”).
Lastly: Public opinion polls indicate that the Germans are actually more anti American than the French are.
David: quotes from the Davies article:
“Ninety years ago in August 1914 Britain was dragged into a war between France and Germany for which France was largely to blame. ”
Nonesense!
“Not for the first time France had reduced Europe to ruins with her insane and criminal aggression.
Again – nonesense. That article is bs.
“I find most of its manifestations to be crass and juvenile”
Crass and juvenile can be fun at times.
America views the French in the same way that the French view Jerry Lewis.
I contend much of the article is based upon highly debateble interpretation of history.
“Britain’s real folly … in 1904, when we agreed to the Entente Cordiale”
The Entente was NOT an alliance, but a settlement of overseas disputes.
Its transformation into a quasi-alliance was the result of German naval and colonial policies threatening UK interests.
“Britain might … have prevaricated over … the German decision to send its troops through Belgium”
Though Britain had informal military understandings with France, it was the invasion of Belgium that presented a threat to British security, and a treaty obligation.
Without it, war would have been v. difficult to get through Cabinet and Parliament.
Napoleon III: a foolish aggrandizer, but he was not Napoleon I.
His ambitions were not limitless; they were restricted (in Europe) to areas that could more-or-less reasonably be claimed by France, and the old “national liberation” causes: Italian and Polish independence.
Certainly France never accepted German seizure of Alsace-Lorraine, and resented the (occaisonal) German persecution of Alsatians who dared to show pro-French attitudes, but four decades showed France was unlikely to go to war over it.
More puzzling is Bismarck’s determination to annex Alsace-Lorraine when it was clear the price would be permanent French enmity.
The Bismarckian system that resulted depended on Germany remaining alliance with Russia, and the neutrality of Britain. The folly and belligerence Germany post-Bismarck trashed both.
The insanity of the Dreyfus case was not so much an entire society steeped in militarism, but a cleavage between (to simplify) Republican and Reactionary/Monarchist opinions, with the latter prominent in the officer corps, and who viewed Jews as emblematic of decadent liberalism.
In 1914 there is plenty of blame to go round: Serbia for sponsoring terrorism, Austria for determining to crush Serbia come what may, Germany for recklessly backing Austria, Russia for investing its prestige in Serbia to the point of war, France for not curbing Russia, even Britain for not making its position clear.
However, France could hardly abandon its ally Russia without making the alliance worthless.
And Germany struck first.
Once in posession of French and Belgian territory, Germany was notably reluctant to return it in the abortive peace contacts during 1914-18.
Given German policies since 1900 at least, Britain was unwilling to live with the threat of German hegemony in Europe, just as France and Russia were unwilling to see their ally reduced to a dependant of Berlin.
The prospect of National Socialist France is an interesting counter-factual, certainly (though a look at the political ideas of Charles Maurras indicates likely differences).
And Davies is quite right to lament the excessive focus of contemporary secondary-school history on the Nazis.
Howerver, the polity of Imperial Germany is not a reassuring one, with its Kaiser-as-warlord, lack of restraint on the Imperial executive, and inclination to concepts of “racial-social darwinism”.
Despite the cultural greatness in science and art of the Gemanic/Austo-Hungarian civilization (many of whose foremost exponent were Jewish), I am grateful that the Second Reich never became the hegemon of Europe.
For that matter, ANY hegemon of Europe is probably a very bad idea, be it France, Germany, Russia or the EUrocracy. (And the British don’t even want the job).
However the French are far more judenhaas than the Germans. Barbara Tuchman argued that anti-semiticism in Germany spread there from France not the other way round.
French bashing is very easy, considering how much they bash everyone else at every opportunity.
You should also read THE COLLAPSE OF THE THRID REPUBLIC by William L. Shirer. A truly schlorly work by one of the great factual writers of the WWII era. His RISE AND FALL OF THE THRID REICH is the definitive work on that subject still. Read anything he wrote, you will be engrossed and informed.
I beg to differ. While it’s a good source for a survey of French history from 1870 forward, and Shirer did do his homework, the volume is rank with his mid-hard Left Statism. He largely blames business and propertied individuals for being selfish for the weakness the Third Republic endured. Castigating the ‘haves’ for being selfish over 5 pages, he quickly glosses over mass theft from the treasury by bureaucrats and pols but can’t seem to connect that that might be a prudent reason for the ‘haves’ to not cheerfully shovel their property gleefully over to the same bureaucrats.
And just as in Rise and Fall, it is always the Right thugs who spill blood in the streets, never the Left. Just as it was the Brownshirts in Germany, it was the confederation of Rightists who spilled blood in France. His bias is so obvious. While he purports to not have loved Soviet Communism, he shelters it slightly none the less, just as he does with the Hard Left elements in France (I believe that it is common for the middle of the Left and Right to give a slight pass to the harder element of their side of the aisle).
Shirer, in my opinion, is a Statist properly with a capital S. He adores selflessness and sacrifice, he adores ‘social equality’ in the sense of outcomes, he has no qualms of ‘going and getting the money where it is’ meaning thieving from the rich, and is firmly convinced that only the State can remedy social ills. And he has no qualms about using Force to make sure it all comes out correctly. As such, he has blazing holes in his argumentation (see example above regarding the rich paying their fair share) and it taints the history. So while it is factual, it is filtered through his socio-political lens, and the resulting deductions are poor.
As for the US’s attitude toward the French, it’s been love/hate for 200+ years. The closest we ever came is when we both were in our radical-revolutionary stages, and somewhat afterward. The XYZ affair was likely the turning of the tide from that honeymoon. As always, there was a fit of nostalgia culminating in the Statue of Liberty, but since then it’s been luke warm and luke cool since.
Jacob:
“Not for the first time France had reduced Europe to ruins with her insane and criminal aggression.
Again – nonesense. That article is bs.”
Sorry if i’m reading this wrong, but are you implying that France never reduced Europe to ruins with it’s insane and criminal aggression?
Since just in my little old Portugal 1/4 to 1/3 of the population died as a result of the Napoleonic invasions i’d say you are very much mistaken.
Unlikely. I don’t think even the most arrogant and ambitious French dictator (which Napoleon III was) would ever have seriously contemplated dominating Europe as Napoleon had. French foreign policy throughout the mid/late 19th century was based on a sense of defensive weakness, not aggressive strength. French colonial expansion into the comparatively worthless territories of North West Africa and Indo-China and foreign expedition to Mexico and Northern Italy were a tacit acceptance that France could no longer win a major continental war, a fact that 1870 proved.
Its quite understandable that after 1870 the French education and military establishment were geared up for another war with Germany, they were terrified of it and justly so. In 1870, France met a Prussian army with German allies from a country merely at the start of industrialisation. By 1914, a united Germany was fully industrialised and the German allies had been fully intergrated in to a German war machine. Left to their own devises in another war with Germany, they would have recieved an even worse defeat.
Contary to Davis, and prepared to accept accussations of ‘Vansittartism’ Prussia was the dynamic aggressor in Europe after Napoleon, not France. What right did Bismark’s Prussia have to ‘unite’ the German speaking principalities under the Kaiser. Many German speakers in the south, especially Bavaria, hated the Prussians. Was it the French or the Prussians who ruled over a third of Poland. Was it France or Prussia who made Hegel and their chief philosopher!
During WW1, Britain didn’t fight for democracy or for France but for the Balance of Power. However ever lobsided it had become Britain couldn’t let one power completely dominate the Continent.
Without British help the French would have lost WW1 within the first year. The Germans peace proposals on victory would have meant the annexation of north-eastern France, the heartland of French industry. France had no ambitions to over-take British naval and colonial supremacy, the Germans did. With French coal and industry and without a strong France to stop it, Germany would have achieved this.
Bash the French by all means but atleast leave them strong enough to stop the Germans. Sometimes, two wrongs do make a right.
madne0,
“Not for the first time France had reduced Europe to ruins with her insane and criminal aggression.”
The article specifically referred to WW1. It is totally false to state that in WW1 “France had reduced Europe to ruins with her insane and criminal aggression.”
Napoleon’s atacks on Spain and Portugal were acts of aggression, and can be added to the many justified reasons for French-bashing, but they were not mentioned in this article.
I feel Spain and Portugal, EU members, need to opose more vigurously the French domination of EU.
Bismark’s attitude to Alsace and Lorraine is a complicated question. The difficulty of examining Bismark (on just about anything) is that one can find quotes that have supporting both sides (or sometimes more than two sides) on many questions.
As for France and the collapse of the Third Republic. It was the Popular Front government of mid 1930’s that missed the chance to really build up France’s defences -they spent the taxpayers money on yet more welfare schemes instead. The Popular Front also helped undermine the French economy with their “pro labour” policies.
Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists were statists to the core – but they were not pro labour union (largely because the unions in Germany were under the control of rival socialist groups) – and so the National Socialists smashed the unions. This (not building roads or other such) was the real reason why mass unemployment (one third of the labour force at its hight) was eliminated in Germany – unlike in France or the United States. In the Soviet Union (like Nazi Germany) independent unions were also not allowed.
Blum in France and F.D.R. in the United States did little about unemployment because the unions were one of the groupings in society that supported them.
Of course one does not have to physically smash the unions (as the National Socialists did – or indeed as the Marxists in Russia had done), just removing their special legal status is enough.
This (I believe) was actually more extreme in both Britain and the United States than it was In France. For example if an person does not wish to employ a union member in his factory (or whatever) then he must be allowed to dismiss them – it is HIS factory after all.
In both Britain and the United States the so called “yellow dog” contract (i.e. a contract of employment in which an employee promises not to join a union) was overuled – hence the growth of unions in certain industries and the persistance of mass unemployment in the 1930’s (the failure of wage rates to IN THE SHORT TERM go down in order for the labour market to clear – as it had done in 1921 in the United States).
The allowing of the obstruction of factory gates (so called “picketing”) and other intimidation by union people, has also undermined certain industries in Britian and the United States – and in France.