Posted on 06/01/2004 11:43:18 PM PDT by NZerFromHK
The republic's inglorious military history leaves it on the wrong side of debate about proper use of force, writes Gerard Henderson.
Sunday marks the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings at Normandy in north-west France, which began the liberation of much of Western Europe from Nazi Germany rule. The US President, George Bush, and the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, will be present at the commemoration. The Prime Minister, John Howard, will have a minor role (about 3000 Australians were involved in the invasion of France, primarily as air crew).
Naturally, France will be represented on June 6 by its President, Jacques Chirac. For the first time, the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, has been invited to a D-Day commemoration.
(Excerpt) Read more at smh.com.au ...
....
Sunday marks the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings at Normandy in north-west France, which began the liberation of much of Western Europe from Nazi Germany rule. The US President, George Bush, and the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, will be present at the commemoration. The Prime Minister, John Howard, will have a minor role (about 3000 Australians were involved in the invasion of France, primarily as air crew).
Naturally, France will be represented on June 6 by its President, Jacques Chirac. For the first time, the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, has been invited to a D-Day commemoration.
At a time when the "give-peace-a-chance" mantra is again prevalent in the land, it is worth recording that Adolf Hitler's regime was crushed by military force and that the D-Day landings were led by the Americans and the British. No member of any pacifist society, nor any member of any international organisation, ever troubled Hitler's Reich. What's more, despite Charles de Gaulle's attempt to rewrite history, the French played only a small part in their nation's liberation in 1944 and 1945.
The presence of so many leaders at the one place provides an occasion for some discussions about Iraq before the handover of authority to Iraqis, which will take effect from July 1. There is still a degree of tension between Bush and Chirac concerning France's announcement early last year that it would veto any UN Security Council resolution which would have facilitated an invasion of Iraq by the coalition of the willing.
This is understandable from the coalition's perspective. Early last year Chirac's Government believed that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction. By refusing to support Bush and Blair, France effectively sent a message to Saddam that he had little reason to fear an invasion. In other words, if Iraq had WMD it could keep them - for the short term, at least. And if it did not have WMD, there was no reason to abide by numerous mandatory Security Council resolutions and declare this.
Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, there has been scant "I told you so" refrains from the Elysee Palace in recent months. This possibly reflects a view in France that Chirac went over the top with his criticisms of the Bush Administration before the invasion of Iraq. Whatever the extent of Chirac's evident dislike of Bush, it is not in France's national interest to see Iraq dissolve into civil war or general anarchy.
Last year Chirac gave megalomania a real nudge. During the course of a few months, he criticised the US, lectured Britain and dressed down the new members of the European Union from Central and Eastern Europe. For all Chirac's grandstanding, the French conservatives did poorly in France's regional elections last March.
The events of June 6 serve as a reminder of the fact that over the past century or so, French governments have spoken loudly but carried a small stick. The French fought bravely to turn back the German invasion in 1914 but by 1917 the country's military forces were of little consequence. The German Army was defeated in the field in late 1918 primarily by Commonwealth nations (in which Australians played an important role). The US decision to enter the war in 1917 also put pressure on the German High Command.
In 1940 France was defeated by Germany. There followed widescale collaboration in the German-occupied zone (i.e., in the north-west, centred on Paris) and the unoccupied zone (i.e., in the south, centred on Vichy). The degree of collaboration - which included the deportation of tens of thousands of French Jews to Nazi death camps in the east - was effectively ignored for decades after the war.
The extent of collaboration - on the right and left of French politics - was first revealed by the US historian Robert Paxton in the early 1970s. Recent works in this genre include Adam Nossiter's France and the Nazis, Robert Gildea's Marianne in Chains and Michael Curtis's Verdict on Vichy. Certainly there was some resistance but this mainly became a factor as a German defeat (on the Eastern and Western fronts) seemed evident.
A decade after June 6, 1944, the French were defeated by Vietnamese communist forces at the battle of Dien Bien Phu: 60,000 French troops died in Indochina before the surrender on May 7, 1954. Subsequently, despite the presence of more than 500,000 troops, the French withdrew defeated from Algeria in 1962. French colonialism expired - in Vietnam, then in Algeria - in just a decade.
Some Indochinese settled successfully in France. Not so the 5 million Muslims (about 10 per cent of the population) who live in France following its unsuccessful attempt at colonising parts of North Africa. Critics of multiculturalism in Australia and elsewhere should look at the problems caused when migrant groups are not welcomed into a society.
Today parts of Paris and some major French cities are effectively no-go areas for police and security forces.
There has been a long-term anti-Semitic tradition in France, historically stemming from the right. This intolerance has now been accentuated by an influx of anti-Semites from North Africa. The unpleasant reality is well documented in Marie Brenner's essay in the edited collection Those Who Forget The Past (Random House, 2004).
Added to all this is the fact that the overregulated French economy (along with that of Germany) is holding back European economic growth. The evident fact emerges that Chirac is in no position to lecture the world. Especially in foreign policy where France preaches multilateralism to the US and Britain but practises unilateralism when it sees fit. In Rwanda (on the wrong side of the civil war), the Ivory Coast and even New Zealand (remember France's terrorist attack on the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour?).
Here's hoping this D-Day kick-starts some modesty on the part of the French political class. But don't bet on it.
gerard.henderson@thesydneyinstitute.com.au
Today parts of Paris and some major French cities are effectively no-go areas for police and security forces.
Leave it to the left to draw precisely the wrong conclusion from facts.
of course we can't expect much from the Sydney Morning Herald, given its leftist slants (but not as bad as newspapers in NZ).
I have three hundred french assault weapons for sale. Great condition they've never been fired in anger and they've only been dropped once.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.