Harry Browne: Those Shameful French

[shanek]

Harry Browne's latest article has some good insights into the recent war controversy around the French. He pointed out how the pro-war crowd ignores the 100,000 Frenchmen who died defending France in WWII before America even got involved, and the French resistance (although he doesn't mention, but probably should have, how France assisted the American revolutionaries).

Here's probably the best point I've heard in a long time, that I haven't heard from anyone else:

Perhaps the WorldNetDaily letter-writers should understand why the Europeans aren’t as all-fired eager to go to war as so many Americans are. And the reason has nothing to do with cowardice.

To most Americans, war is impersonal. War is dropping a few harmless bombs on foreign countries, the regrettable-but-heroic deaths of a handful of American soldiers, collateral damage, mopping up, peacekeeping, General Schwarzkopf on TV explaining smart bombs.

But to Europeans, war is personal. Their parents and grandparents — and even some of those living today — have experienced war first-hand. They’ve seen the destruction of their own homes, the loss of the property they worked a lifetime to accumulate, the murder of relatives and close friends, whole cities flattened, dead bodies decomposing in pools of blood, the brutality of conquering soldiers, damage that’s far from collateral, and outcomes far different from what was promised. To them, war is real — not a video game.

Maybe the reason they don’t talk in macho terms is because they know what they’re talking about.

Here's the whole thing:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/FrenchAndAmericans.htm

(Edited to fix strange characters)

 

[corplinx]

A case of responding to something that needs no response. French bashing is more of something we do for fun instead of something done out of serious contemplation. Harry shouldn't have wasted time on the subject.

 

[Reginald]

From the article

I neglected to mention one letter-writer who trotted out the ever-popular coup de grâce. You can’t have a discussion about Iraq (or Serbia or Afghanistan or any other Enemy-of-the-Day) without someone mentioning that if only they’d stopped Hitler at Munich, World War II could have been prevented. This assumes, of course, that someone could have stopped Hitler at Munich — a fact not in evidence.

Ok had the British, French et al, not turned a blind eye to Hitler's rearming in the 30's contrary to agreement then there is a good chance that they COULD have stopped him. Or indeed he may not have got "started" in the first place.

His building of "Civil" aircraft, and agricultural machines (Tanks to you and me) to the point where he had enough to become confident enough to just start building "in the open". The horse having already bolted.

The reason for the phenominal success of the Germanys at the start of the war was because the allies had so neglected their own armed forces (in the naive belief that treaties were being observed) that the modern (not futuristic) German war machine moved faster and fired harder. (along with an improved command structure).

That is why I feel that The British, the French and the Germans (albeit from a different perspective) should know exactly what happens when you give these people free run.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Reginald:

Ok had the British, French et al, not turned a blind eye to Hitler's rearming in the 30's contrary to agreement then there is a good chance that they COULD have stopped him. Or indeed he may not have got "started" in the first place.

If the French had moved troops into the Rhineland in 1936 during Hitler's remilitrization there, things might have turned out very different. The Germans weren't a match for the French militarily at that stage, Hitler would have had to back down, he'd have ended up looking like a complete ass (the kiss of death for any politician) and nobody would have ever called the French "chhesew eating surrender monkeys". Possibly.

 

[Segnosaur]

Harry Browne's latest article has some good insights into the recent war controversy around the French. He pointed out how the pro-war crowd ignores the 100,000 Frenchmen who died defending France in WWII before America even got involved, and the French resistance

Haven't had time to read the article yet, but I just wanted to make a few points:
- Yes, 100,000 french may have died defending France. But guess what? It was france that was getting invaded. People will die defending their homeland. But remember.... approximately 100,000 CANADIANS died (about the same amount, from a country that had a smaller population base), and Canada itself was not in any direct danger.
- A lot of people in Poland died in WW2 as well. (They were invaded before France, and ended up living under a dictatorship.) Yet the Polish leadership is supporting American action in Iraq. Why is the 'French' experience more important than the Polish experience?
- If France was taking the high road because it knew the 'evils' of war in the past, then why was france:
* Continuing 'violent' actions in other countries (like Vietnam) since the war
* Testing nuclear weapons in the pacific (to the criticism of almost all countries in the world) after the U.S., the U.S.S.R., etc. had decided to stop all tests

If France really wanted to take the moral high ground, they would set an example in the world, rather than take a 'do as I say, not as I do' policy.

 

[Frank Newgent]

If the French had moved troops into the Rhineland in 1936 during Hitler's remilitrization there, things might have turned out very different. The Germans weren't a match for the French militarily at that stage, Hitler would have had to back down, he'd have ended up looking like a complete ass (the kiss of death for any politician) and nobody would have ever called the French "chhesew eating surrender monkeys". Possibly.

If Screaming Jay Hawkins had not ad-libbed such strikingly unconventional lines in his 1958 version of Cole Porter's I Love Paris, things might have turned out very differently. Neither Nat King Cole's voice nor his rendition of the tune were a match for Jay's and if not for the Ella Fitzgerald cover of this song, the legacy of the film Can-Can (1953) would lie buried in the very shallow grave of Les Baxter and His Orchestra. Possibly.

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Funny...

If Screaming Jay Hawkins had not ad-libbed such strikingly unconventional lines in his 1958 version of Cole Porter's I Love Paris, things might have turned out very differently. Neither Nat King Cole's voice nor his rendition of the tune were a match for Jay's and if not for the Ella Fitzgerald cover of this song, the legacy of the film Can-Can (1953) would lie buried in the very shallow grave of Les Baxter and His Orchestra. Possibly.

Frank - you are one funny dude

Your comments are irrelevant yet relevant at the same time - very witty.

Seriously, Germany violated the treaty of Versailles (sp?) in the mid 30's (Iraq anyone??) and France - which DID have the military power - lacked the political will to fight. This is the example the US should follow??

Regards,
Barkhorn.

 

[shanek]

Ok had the British, French et al, not turned a blind eye to Hitler's rearming in the 30's contrary to agreement then there is a good chance that they COULD have stopped him. Or indeed he may not have got "started" in the first place.

OK, had the British, French, et al, not sought the total ruination of the German economy as punishment for WWI, the sentiments that Hitler exploited would not have been there and he would have been laughed at.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Harry Browne: Those Shameful French

Yes, 100,000 french may have died defending France. But guess what? It was france that was getting invaded.

Not the point. The claim of the pro-war nuts is that France was too cowardly to defend themselves and we had to come in and do it for them, and that just isn't true.

A lot of people in Poland died in WW2 as well. (They were invaded before France, and ended up living under a dictatorship.) Yet the Polish leadership is supporting American action in Iraq. Why is the 'French' experience more important than the Polish experience?

He didn't say that. He's responding to the pro-war nuts who are calling the French all sorts of names simply because they don't agree with them.

 

[Flo]

Re: Re: Harry Browne: Those Shameful French

- A lot of people in Poland died in WW2 as well. (They were invaded before France, and ended up living under a dictatorship.) Yet the Polish leadership is supporting American action in Iraq. Why is the 'French' experience more important than the Polish experience?

The main differences between France and Poland are colonisation and historical links and trade with Arab/African countries.

- If France was taking the high road because it knew the 'evils' of war in the past, then why was france:
* Continuing 'violent' actions in other countries (like Vietnam) since the war
* Testing nuclear weapons in the pacific (to the criticism of almost all countries in the world) after the U.S., the U.S.S.R., etc. had decided to stop all tests

If France really wanted to take the moral high ground, they would set an example in the world, rather than take a 'do as I say, not as I do' policy.

I think that's what Chirac would like to be remembered for ... being a moral person on the international scene rather than having quite a lot of skeletons in his domestic cupboard.

As for moral high ground and setting an example, I don't see anybody on this planet that has a right to preach to anyone ...

 

[Charles Livingston]

"But to Europeans, war is personal. Their parents and grandparents — and even some of those living today — have experienced war first-hand. They’ve seen the destruction of their own homes, the loss of the property they worked a lifetime to accumulate, the murder of relatives and close friends, whole cities flattened, dead bodies decomposing in pools of blood, the brutality of conquering soldiers, damage that’s far from collateral, and outcomes far different from what was promised. To them, war is real — not a video game."

Agreed to a point, but this is a bit oversimplistic, isnt it? I mean, many of our parents and grandparents - and even some of those living today - have experienced war first-hand, including the same wars the author is referring to. I agree that generally speaking we have not experienced war first-hand on U.S. soil, and certainly have not seen the destruction of our own homes, loss of property. However, many of our grandparents and parents fought in those same wars (and ohters) that the author is referring to, and many saw relatives and close friends die, whole cities flattened first hand, dead bodies decmposing in pools of blood, brutality of conquering soldiers, damage that’s far from collateral, and outcomes far different from what was promised. Just because it wasnt american soil doesnt mean americans dont know what war is like first-hand. And just because I am under 30 doesnt mean I associate everything with a video game. I, and many people younger than me, can differentiate between real-life and a video game.

Edited to add: Dont they have video games in france and europe?

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Harry Browne: Those Shameful French

Not the point. The claim of the pro-war nuts is that France was too cowardly to defend themselves and we had to come in and do it for them, and that just isn't true.

Not to say picking up a gun to defend your own home or country doesn't take 'guts'. However, defense of your homeland has an element of self-preservation in it. Put it this way - Who is braver, the father who defends his own home and family from an intruder, or the police man who regularly defends other people from intruders (when his own safety would not be threatened otherwise).

Like I said, about the same amount of Canadians died as french, and Canada was not in any immediate danger from the Germans at the time. We went to war to protect others.

He didn't say that. He's responding to the pro-war nuts who are calling the French all sorts of names simply because they don't agree with them.

Ironic that in a thread dedicated to debunking 'anti-french' attitude as being unfair, you use the phrase 'pro-war nut'.

I myself call the french names because, well, we have good reason not to like the french in this country. (The whole French interference in Canada/Quebec affairs for example.)

 

[Reginald]

shanek

OK, had the British, French, et al, not sought the total ruination of the German economy as punishment for WWI, the sentiments that Hitler exploited would not have been there and he would have been laughed at.

100% agreed, however that was not the examle being thrown in by the author at the end.

I dont agree with bashing the French on this, I have acknowledged the error of my initial knee jerk reactions on a couple of earlier threads

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Harry Browne: Those Shameful French

The main differences between France and Poland are colonisation and historical links and trade with Arab/African countries.

Well, France and Poland do have different histories. But, it still doesn't say why France's stance should be considered 'moral high ground'. If anything, France's actions should be viewed as hipocritical, since their colonial past involved a lot of bloodshed.

I think that's what Chirac would like to be remembered for ... being a moral person on the international scene rather than having quite a lot of skeletons in his domestic cupboard.

I suspect he's really worried about those skeletons. After all, France has been selling a lot of stuff to Iraq, and it wouldn't suprise me if they've been breaking U.N. sanctions. (Not that the U.N. really matters any more.)

 

[Segnosaur]

Harry Browne's latest article has some good insights into the recent war controversy around the French. ...

I finally got around to reading the article. Basically I found it to contain a lot of rehashed anti-war points. But, I do want to take on a few things....

They mention American assistance to Iraq in the past (and former friendly relations with Saddam). A common anti-war tactic. But it fails to put things into context. Yes, we had good relations in the past. But relations change. Sometimes you side with groups you don't like to fight a greater enemy. Sometimes the 'friend' you had changes, and you can no longer continue supporting them. In this case, the U.S. was friendly with Iraq because they hated Iran more, and needed to cultivate a friendship with them to counteract USSR influence. Browne seens to ignore that fact.

He points out world support for the french position over the U.S. one. Yet the president does not, nor should he make policy decisions based on public opinion. It is his job to do his best to ensure the security of the U.S. He has the intelligence data, we do not. If he makes a bad decision, he will be voted out of office in the next election.

He points to war being 'personal' for the Europeans. I have several arguments against that: First of all, many people in the world saw death in Europe, not just Europeans (as someone else pointed out). Secondly, should people removed from the war by more than 1 generation really have any more of an input on how bad 'war' is than anyone else? (If you follow that argument, then you might start discussing reparations for slavery, since someone's great, great, great grandfather may have been a slave.) Thirdly, as I argued before, Poland has seen war, just like France. Yet Poland has signed on with the U.S.

At the end, he suggests Bush going after Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, etc. I have 2 arguments against him: Those countries really are brutal dictatorships, and making them democratic would make the world better. (A Democracy trying to eliminate a dictatorship is a little different than a dictatorship trying to eliminate a democracy.) My other argument is that the U.S. is a democracy, and as such has checks to prevent its leaders from acting too irrationally.

All in all, it was an article with little new, and has lots of stuff which has already been argued (and in my opinion, successfully countered).

 

[shanek]

Re: shanek

100% agreed, however that was not the examle being thrown in by the author at the end.

Neither was yours.

I dont agree with bashing the French on this, I have acknowledged the error of my initial knee jerk reactions on a couple of earlier threads

Good for you.

 

[patnray]

From the article

Ok had the British, French et al, not turned a blind eye to Hitler's rearming in the 30's contrary to agreement then there is a good chance that they COULD have stopped him. Or indeed he may not have got "started" in the first place.

Put it in perspective and it sheds light on the crazy "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of diplomacy that is too common today. One reason the Allies turned a blind eye to Hitler's rearming was because they thought he would attack Russia, and they were more scared of Communism than of an armed Germany.

We had no quarrel with Iraq's abuses, we even provide him assistance, as long as he was at war with Iran...

 

[Reginald]

Put it in perspective and it sheds light on the crazy "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of diplomacy that is too common today. One reason the Allies turned a blind eye to Hitler's rearming was because they thought he would attack Russia, and they were more scared of Communism than of an armed Germany.

We had no quarrel with Iraq's abuses, we even provide him assistance, as long as he was at war with Iran...

I agree with the last part.

So what you are saying is that having supported any regime in the past, rightly or wrongly, we cannot then change our stance now or in the future?

If you accept that it was wrong for the western Govs to support Iraq in the first place, then where is the problem in feeling it is wrong to allow his appaling humanitarian practices to continue?

 

[shanek]

So what you are saying is that having supported any regime in the past, rightly or wrongly, we cannot then change our stance now or in the future?

No, but it does take the wind out of a lot of the pro-war arguments. If Saddam is such a threat to world peace, if it's so horrible that he gain weapons of mass destruction, then why were we fscking giving him those weapons in the first place?

Bottom line: Saddam is someone who's good to attack, who's easy to demonize in the minds of Americans, and who has no capacity whatsoever to fight back. I guarantee you if it were proven that Saddam has WMD, then, like North Korea, we'd be leaving him the frell alone.