Eamonn Fitzgerald's Rainy Day

Hostility toward the U.S. by France and Germany is normal. De Gaulle's surliness toward FDR for challenging his assumption that he was France's leader despite having no mandate apart from his own declaration set the tone that still prevails. Germany's rooted hostility needs no explanation. Twice its goal to dominate the continent and impose its barbaric values were nullified, thanks in part (the Russians did more) to American interposition. Its gratitude toward America for not transforming it into farmland, as some asked after the war, proved transitory. The French have always been pusilanimous and the Germans self-absorbed. What's new?

Hostility toward the U.S. by France and Germany is normal. De Gaulle's surliness toward FDR for challenging his assumption that he was France's leader despite having no mandate apart from his own declaration set the tone that still prevails. Germany's rooted hostility needs no explanation. Twice its goal to dominate the continent and impose its barbaric values were nullified, thanks in part (the Russians did more) to American interposition. Its gratitude toward America for not transforming it into farmland, as some asked after the war, proved transitory. The French have always been pusilanimous and the Germans self-absorbed. What's new?

I disagree. In this crisis it's the Germans who have been pusilanimous and the french self-absorbed..... ;-)

"France's exports to Iraq collapsed but now there're spiralling upwards — worth a record 660 billion euros last year, compared with 398 billion in 2000."

Iraq's GDP in 2001 was $59 billion. How can they buy from France, in one year, 660 billion euros worth of imports? Given that a euro is about equivalent to a dollar, this means Iraq purchased more than 10 times its entire economic output for the year. No nation does this or even comes close to doing this. It means in 2001 Iraq imported from France, half as much as the United States imports from the entire world - despite having an economy less than 1% the size of the US economy.

Jerry:
Sorry to rupture your balloon but by 43 FDR had a personal animus toward de Gaulle that was totally uncalled for. Also FDR had no compunction dealing with Vichy and even supported the regime until America's entry
It's easy to mock the French in the aftrmath of their defeat in 40 and the establishment of Vichy. de Gaulle like the Free French were disgusted beyond words and wanted to recuperate French honour. Too many Americans forget that the French communists on order from Moscow actively sbatoged the war effort and then after the defeat sat on their asses until the invasion of the Soviet union
SO if you think Churchill had it tough from 39-41; de Gaulle's experiences are even more intense. He based his legitimacy on the fact that he was a junior minister in the 3rd Republic and by sheer force of personality created the Free French.

Then there's some additional post war history: The Truman administration prohibited the French from using American equipment in the French Indochina war. France lost and American filled the vaccumm...
Algeria was another sterling example of American foeign policy brillance. They prohibited the French NATO troops to be transferred to Algeria.
SO you can understand some of the French cynicism towards American foreign policy.
In any case, I'm deeply disgusted by both Scroeder and Chirac; they've trashed NATO and have endangered their countries' prestige for what?
xavier

About the only thing I can agree with in the previous comment is "It's easy to mock the French..."

According to Henry Kissinger, since the defeat of Napoleon, France's foreign policy has been to regain its status at the expense of whatever power was strongest at the time. To the French way of thinking, there is no essential difference between the Germany of the Kaiser and Hitler and the United States.

Though there is some truth to this observation, it obscures a critically important gap between the thinking of de Gaulle and that of his successors. De Gaulle certainly put French interests first, but he never forgot who had delivered France from Hitler and preserved Europe from Stalinism. The many quarrels he had with the United States while president (chiefly with the Kennedy and Johnson administrations) usually involved questions of prestige and face, not substance -- France's status as a member of NATO was in question, but never France's reaction to a genuine threat from the Soviet Union.

Gaullism without de Gaulle is not the same thing. It is corruptible as de Gaulle was not, preoccupied with the search for petty advantage in daily diplomacy instead of with de Gaulle's vision, willing to take American goodwill for granted. If Francois Mitterand, a genuine Gaullist internationally despite his Socialist party affiliation had not been president for so long we would have seen today's shabby maneuvering by the French government long ago, while the Soviet Union still stood. Compared to Mitterand, let alone de Gaulle, Chirac is a scheming, small minded politician who Arabs and French businesses with interests in Iraq can buy, and probably have already. He and indeed most French politicians remind us to consider the possibility that de Gaulle and Mitterand were exceptions in recent French history -- that the true spirit of France is the spirit of Vichy and the French Communists, eager to turn its back on Western liberal values to curry favor with any dictator either strong enough to threaten it or wealthy enough to pay its price.

Tim:

The article in Die Zeit suggests those billions should be millions, i.e., 660 million euros in trade last year.

Xavier:

Ultimately, if not immediately, the French got beau coup American military equipment for use in Indo-China. As a guess, however, Eisenhower pulling the rug out from under them (and the British) during the Suez crisis of 1956 still sticks in their throats.

Tim:

Thanks for pointing out the typo: It is indeed "millions" not "billions". The posting has been corrected.

Sorry.

Eamonn

John, if they're really still chafing over Eisenhower and Suez, then what that means is that the French's main concern is resentment about losing their status as a major colonial power. Suez was their last great adventure in Africa.

If the French, Germans, and Russians "support" Iraq economically and politically does this mean that they "covertly" support international terrorism? Are they not then the agents of the "Axis of Evil"?

The sad truth is capitalism at any cost in human suffering is now prevalent over the idealistic principles of democratic republican government. Apparently freedom, liberty and equality are fine as long as they don't interfere with business as usual.

If business meets its bottom line objectives does it care what form of government exists anywhere in the world?

The current bottom line is principal over principle no matter what the nationality or the cost in human suffering.

What a travesty of the human soul. APOSTASY!

So the French bought 660 millions Euros of oil from Iraq...big deal. The US bought 3.5 billions USD
see: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/sitc1/2002/c5050.html

The problem with most stories is that they are one-sided.

It is as stupid to say France was against the war because of commercial ties than it it to say the US wanted war to get the oil.

About the 1975 picture....

There are others from 1982 and later, of Rumsfeld with Saddam....

again, forgetting to mention all the aspects, as does Michael M?nger, only shows one's bias....