French weren't cowards (REALLY BIG LAUGH ALERT)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | February 6, 2003 | Pan Demetrakakes

[Chi-townChief]

Now that France has emerged as a leading critic of U.S. policy toward Iraq, a lot of pundits and editorial cartoonists are having a field day lampooning France's ''cowardice'' and proclivity to ''surrender.'' The supposed evidence for this slur is France's defeat in World War II.

Why is that, exactly? No one would dream of sneering at Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia, Norway or any of the other nations overcome by Germany in the war. So what makes France fair game?

France's critics need to be aware of some historical facts. At the beginning of World War II, Germany possessed the world's most powerful army, led by some of the world's most brilliant commanders. When Germany launched its great assault on France in 1940, it had no worries in the East, having defeated Poland and concluded a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. Moreover, France was strategically handicapped by Holland's and Belgium's foolish insistence on neutrality--which Hitler blithely violated the moment it suited him.

By the time the Anglo-American forces reached France in 1944, Germany had been weakened by three years of savage warfare against Russia. Even so, the Allies barely managed to contain a German counteroffensive (the Battle of the Bulge). How much tougher do you think the German army was at the war's outset?

Those who carp about France's ''ingratitude'' never seem to remember that the United States could not have become a nation without France's help. At the very least, they should thank their lucky stars they didn't have to face the Wehrmacht in 1940.

Pan Demetrakakes,

St. Charles

letters@suntimes.com

[kcar]

"Let me guess. The red and blue stripes are held on with velcro so it can easily be turned into a white flag."

What a great idea for a fun product. I'd buy one.

[altayann]

Ever wonder where the phrase 'lynch mob' comes from?

After the American Revolution, there was a judge named Lynch who had such a habit of hanging Loyalists, that his name became synonymous with the act of hanging. And the bloodthirsty mobs that attended each 'lynching' became known as 'lynch mobs'.

So, in other words, the American Revolution also had its fair share of terror.

Be that as it may, that doesn't mean that the French revolution was not rooted in the same ideals as the American.

[altayann]

I'd actually heard the real reason for the failure of the Maginot line was that it could not, for political reason, be fortified directly to the north, in the part of France that borderd with Belgium.

The advances in tank technology allowed the Germans, by invading Belgium, essentially to go around the Line, thus rendering it useless.

[altayann]

Well, care to paraphrase the masterful Kuehnelt-Leddihn's explanation as to how the American did not lead directly to the French Revolution. How the ideas of liberty, equality and democracy did not in fact play a large role in both revolutions?

And while you're at, please explain the odd concidence that in both revolutions, the colors red, white and blue came to represent both sets of revolutionaries? To the extent that both color schemes came to be represented in the flags of both nations?

[WorkingClassFilth]

You're correct that the Maginot line was incomplete, whether for political reasons or not is moot. The fact is that the age of static defense was over as the German's shortly demonstrated. In WWI the Germans ably demonstrated the uses of the machine gun, the armed aircraft, poison gas and, even, field gray uniforms and camouflage; and in the scientific application of those tactical achievements practically ended a thousand years of cavalry, pomp and aristocratic command.

The point is, the Germans (in this case) were innovators while much of Europe, like France, remained entrenched (literally) in futile practices and errant hopes from conflicts past. The armor tacticians of Germany taught fluid movement, firepower and speed. The French enshrined comfortable rabbit warrens. Had the vaunted French forces been evenly distributed along the Belgian border, the results would have been the same. Paraphrasing Patton, they would gone through the French like crap through a goose.

Just as the Titanic taught the lesson of false hopes in technical triumph, the same kind of hubris finds it's comeuppance in every field of human endeavor. History is littered with examples.

[mhking]

[jimbo123]

Q. Why don't they have fireworks at Euro Disney?

A. Because every time they shoot them off, the French try to surrender.

[Leisler]

"What is infuriating is the numbers of Frenchmen who still adhere to that philosophy."

You mistake the constant as the aberation.

[Porterville]

Okay good point.

[Lizard_King]

Your sarcastic tone does little to encourage further examination of the topic, as it is implicit in such an attitude that you are looking for a fight rather than a debate. Nevertheless:

Liberty would be the only common thread from that set of slogans you present that was a concern to both Americans and the French; however, they meant entirely different things by it. The American conception of Liberty as sought after in the Declaration of Independence would be the classical one of personal responsibility, freedom of speech, religion, etc; the French revolution's is a highly contradictory form founded in the early brand of Socialism put forth by Rousseau and others, wherein man becomes only truly "free" by giving up every right to the state in a social contract. Such a self-contradictory statement would seem facially absurd to many, but the fact is it held much appeal both for those seeking to institute socialism and for those seeking a substitute for religion.

Equality of the sort mentioned in the Declaration is also an entirely different beast from that sought by the French Revolution. The former is best summed up as equality of opportunity; the latter is about the equalization of outcomes, or as I define it, coerced mediocrity of all.

Democracy has little to do with the American War of Independence, and everything to do with the French Revolution. America was set up as a Republic, not as an accident of history but directly to avoid any sort of democratic, mob rule government since it was fairly obvious that no new monarchy was going to be set up once GW refused. The French revolution took in hand the ignorance and bloodlust of the mob and set it aflame, and then sought to pretend that somehow that was the civilized ideal.

The stories of the origins of both flags are far more complex than the parallel you seem to seek here, although there is probably some correlation from the end of the French revolutionaries imitating the American flag. If you want to use such superficial evidence as a lynchpin of your argument, I suggest you back it up yourself rather than making me do the research for you.

[altayann]

Your sarcastic tone does little to encourage further examination of the topic, as it is implicit in such an attitude that you are looking for a fight rather than a debate.

I get that way when I find people trying to reinterpret history to fit their own political theories.

It's quite true that both the French and American revolution had different interpretations of the concept of liberty and equality.

However, to conclude on that basis that the French and American revolutions had nothing in common with each other is ludicrous.

In a world ruled by kings and the concept of divine right, both the American and French revolutions had the temerity to put forward the idea that the invidual was the true basis of any form of government.

The American conception of Liberty as sought after in the Declaration of Independence would be the classical one of personal responsibility, freedom of speech, religion, etc

And it was Voltaire who originally said that he might diagree with someone's opinion, but would defend their right to speak it. So I don't think you can conclude that the French Revolution was entirely devoid of the concept of freedom of speech.

And as for equality as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, I'm not entirely sure where you get only equality of opportunity from 'All Men Are Created Equal'. That may be how many people interpret the Declaration today: that isn't necessarily how it was interpreted then.

Democracy has little to do with the American War of Independence, and everything to do with the French Revolution.

I'm afraid not. Both revolutions began as revolts against what was perceived to be corrupt goverments. But in both, the revolutionaries did on occasion mention the word 'democracy'.

America was set up as a Republic, not as an accident of history but directly to avoid any sort of democratic, mob rule government

And France wasn't set up as a republic as well? Anyway, all I can say is if that was the original intent, to avoid 'mob rule government', the Founders really screwed up with this particular Article:

"Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. "

Obviously, democratic concepts played a large role in the creation of the US Constitution and in the minds of the Founders. To claim otherwise is foolish.

If you want to use such superficial evidence as a lynchpin of your argument, I suggest you back it up yourself rather than making me do the research for you.

The fact that revolutionaries in two separate countries both took the same set of striped colours to sympolize their revolutions is not superficial. It indicates a common purpose. Ever notice how both communist China and Russia used a pure red in both their flags? Coincidence, perhaps?

The colours red, white and blue were originally chosen to symbolize equality,liberty and fraternity in both the American and French revolutions. That's why they're used on both flags.

In other words, both revolutions had a common root.

[Lizard_King]

<In a world ruled by kings and the concept of divine right, both the American and French revolutions had the temerity to put forward the idea that the invidual was the true basis of any form of government.

Sure they did. That's why we set up a republic, and they set up Communes, dictatorial committees, the Terror, and concluded with an Emperor. That's why the symbol of the American War For Independence is a guillotine.

And it was Voltaire who originally said that he might diagree with someone's opinion, but would defend their right to speak it.

First off, I challenge you to find that quote from Voltaire...You won't, because it is wholly apocryphal. He wrote volumes that might in summation be interpreted to say as much, but that quote is total bs.

Since Voltaire died in 1778, it is impossible to know exactly what he would have thought about the Revolution; I would imagine like a lot of his Enlightenment and Post-enlightenment peers at this later time, he would have supported the overthrow of the Ancien Regime, especially the removal of clerical roles in government and landed nobility; however, he was a great believer in enlightened despotism, and only Napoleon would have appealed to him at all thereafter. But that whole part in the middle would have necessitated a 180 in his point of view;the bloodbath of the Terror the various idiot experiments in Communes and whatnot would have been antithetical to his being...

Individuals on all end of the political spectrum that belonged to the movement known as the Enlightenment were eager supporters of the French Revolution...at first. When the beast really reared its head, the vast majority were nauseated by it and horribly disappointed that it had not emulated the American War of Independence.

And as for equality as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, I'm not entirely sure where you get only equality of opportunity from 'All Men Are Created Equal'. That may be how many people interpret the Declaration today: that isn't necessarily how it was interpreted then.

Very simple. Equality of opportunity means, for instance, we are all equal in the eyes of the law, we all have rights granted us by our Creator at birth, etc.

Equality of outcome means the breed of egalitarianism put forth by the French Revolutionary leaders, with coerced mediocrity through totalitarianism as its goal.

Don't believe me? Rousseau outlined it quite clearly in his Social Contract: To be truly "free" in our fallen, civilized status (as opposed to the glorious noble savages he claimed we once had been), we must reorganize society; man must yield all his rights to the state in a contract; the state will apportion them in a manner that accords to social justice. Sound like the tune of another revolution?

In fact, while John Locke is far from an uncontradictory figure himself, no clearer contrast could be drawn between the American War and the French Revolution than Locke's conception of Social Contract vs Rousseau's. The latter is the only sort of "freedom" that the Revolution was about.

I'm afraid not. Both revolutions began as revolts against what was perceived to be corrupt goverments. But in both, the revolutionaries did on occasion mention the word 'democracy'.

Thomas Paine, proto-socialist, would be the only major figure of the War I can think of that might possibly be construed to be a direct defender of democracy. Thomas Jefferson was rather confused about the topic, and as usual was far better at rhetoric than defined ideas:

("Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.-So the will of the majority must prevail in *all* cases, *except* where it is unreasonable, unjust to minorities, etc...I wonder how one would achieve such guarantees with a democracy...hmmm...);

keep in mind this is the same man that saw America's future in agriculture and naval power with a 500 small ship navy. In any case, none was a ringing endorser of democracy except as a tool to be used on the local level most effectively (which is a part of the republic, rather than "true" democracy), and those that remained alive were in serious reflection on the direction the French Revolution was taking.

The founders spoke explicitly and often, especially Alexander Hamilton

("If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon turn into a monarchy or some other form of dictatorship.";-Sound like a good prediction?;"We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government.";-ie a Republic)

and James Madison

("Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.")

, about the need to prevent true democracy from occurring; De Tocqueville's seminal critique of America had as one of its central premises that they had not done enough to prevent Democracy, not that they had ever advocated it.

Hence the original state legislature election of Senators, rather than the populist sham we have now with direct election. Hence the three branches, with judicial posts appointed rather than elected, and the Presidential election via an electoral college. A republic, not a democracy.

And France wasn't set up as a republic as well?

No. Is mainland China a republic simply because they name it so? Of course not. Look at the political structures following the revolution, not a republic in the whole bunch, whatever they called it.

Anyway, all I can say is if that was the original intent, to avoid 'mob rule government', the Founders really screwed up with this particular Article:[Representatives]

How? A republic is defined by the balance of the interests of the elite with those of the masses, with the vote of the masses being limited to electing officials on their behalf rather than direct legislation, executive or judicial roles. The Senate was there to balance the House, anyway. I fail to see how this does not fit into such a scheme.

The fact that revolutionaries in two separate countries both took the same set of striped colours to sympolize their revolutions is not superficial. It indicates a common purpose. Ever notice how both communist China and Russia used a pure red in both their flags? Coincidence, perhaps? The colours red, white and blue were originally chosen to symbolize equality,liberty and fraternity in both the American and French revolutions. That's why they're used on both flags.

First off, there is a big difference between seceders and revolutionaries. The Americans were not out to overthrow the established order in Britain, but rather simply to remove themselves from it. Remember, the possibility of a monarchy with George Washington at its head was very real until he made clear he had no such ambitions.

Anyhow, even though it is your contention that requires factual basis, here goes: The colors of the US flag have several roots: in the red and white New England "Pine Flag" (flown for almost a century in NE before becoming a part of history at Bunker Hill); in the famous red and white striped "Don't Tread On Me" rattlesnake naval flag used from 1775-76; in the continental Army flag flown by Washington, which combined the Union Jack with the red stripes; and then in the flag approved by congress in 1777, with the 13 stripes as they are now and and 13 stars in no defined arrangement.

Legends attributing all kinds of meanings to the flag are spread with no basis in fact; the few things we know for sure are what the numbers of stripes and stars meant; all else is conjecture.

Do you really think a group of men as fond of their own cleverness as our founders would have passed up the chance to extol the symbols behind our flag if they had meant them as such?

It is all modern spin, now that people have come to equate the French Revolutionary ideals with liberty rather than as its antithesis. Hell, even Clinton knows there's a difference between that "liberte egalite fraternite" hokum and what we were based on:

"We know that we have a country founded on the then revolutionary idea that all of us are created equal, and equally entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." --Pres. William Jefferson Clinton, speaking before the Star-Spangled Banner at the National Museum of American History, July 13, 1998.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. All men created equal. It's actually very different from all men simply "are" equal, as the French Revolution put forth.

But don't take it from me. Take it up with the Smithsonian, if you like.

The French Embassy also has a different opinion from yours on the origins of the tricolor:

THE FRENCH FLAG

The "tricolor" (three-color) flag is an emblem of the Fifth Republic. It had its origins in the union, at the time of the French Revolution, of the colours of the King (white) and the City of Paris (blue and red). Today, the "tricolor" flies over all public buildings. It is flown at most official ceremonies, both civil and military. In the early days of the French Revolution, the three colors were initially brought together in the form of a cockade. In July 1789, just before the taking of the Bastille, Paris was in a state of high agitation. A militia was formed; its distinctive sign was a two-color cockade made up of the ancient colors of Paris, blue and red. On July 17, Louis XVI came to Paris to recognize the new National Guard, sporting the blue and red cockade, to which the Commander of the Guard, Lafayette, it appears, had added the royal white. The law of 27 pluviôse, Year II (February 15, 1794), established the "tricolor" as the national flag. At the recommendation of the painter David, the law stipulated that the blue should be flown nearest the flagstaff. Throughout the 19th century, the blue of the legitimist royalists contendedwith the three colours inherited from the Revolution. The white flag was re-introduced under the Restoration, but Louis- Philippe reinstated the "tricolor," surmounting it with the Gallic rooster. During the Revolution of 1848, the provisional Government adopted the "tricolor," but the people on the barricades brandished a red flag to signal their revolt. Under the Third Republic, a consensus gradually emerged around the three colours. From 1880 onwards, the presentation of the colors to the armed forces each July 14 came to be a moment of high patriotic fervour. While the Comte de Chambord, pretender to the French throne, never accepted the "tricolor," the royalists ended up rallying round the national flag at the time of the First World War. The constitutions of 1946 and 1958 (article 2) instituted the "blue, white and red" flag as the national emblem of the Republic.

Once again, the actual history of a symbol is quite different from the popular mythology created afterwards. In both cases, the flags have more to do with the material origins of the people (ie, in one being English and in the other being French/Parisian) than with the ideals attributed afterwards.

[OregonRancher]

It was later estimated by US army intelligence that less than 1000 French actually were in the resistance at the time of war's end.

[Lizard_King]

you might be interested in this...on democracy and the French revolution...altayann and myself are having a discussion...

[Moosefart]

Pan Demetrakakes can bite me ...what an idiot.

[Mr. Lucky]

Gosh, he should have written about the heroic struggle of the French people as they fought against all odds to defend their capitol against the vastly superior invading forces; who, even when offered honorable surrender chose to fight to the death.

Oh, wait. I'm thinking of the Texans at the Alamo. The French gave up Paris to the Germans without firing a single shot in defense.

The French, at least the governing class, were and are cowards.

[Wonder Warthog]

"A revolution that was based largely on the American revolution, as I recall. You know, liberty and all that stuff."

Yeah, and which the French screwed up, just like virtually everything else they have attempted. Read some of the Founding Fathers on the (first) French Revolution--they saw where France was going wrong almost immediately.

[texson66]

West?

[Wonder Warthog]

"Hey, we got the cajuns down here in Louisiana. They're pretty far removed from France though. I think they're the reason why there's a courage deficit in France. They took it all with them."

Not only that, but they can cook better, too!

[ggekko]

The Wehrmacht conquered France in about two weeks. It was not a high point of military strategy.

The French High command foolishly concentrated their forces around the Maginot line. A stratgey of forward defense with armored units positioned in the rear would caused Germany more problems.