Bill proposes digging up American soldiers buried in France

[renata]

More idiocy.
Does she really think it is appropriate to disturb 50 and 80 year old graves in a fit of pique?



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/sprj.irq.congress.france/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In another swipe at the French, a Florida congresswoman has proposed that the government pay for families who might want to bring home from France the remains of Americans who fought and died in the world wars.

"I, along with many other Americans, do not feel that the French government appreciates the sacrifices men and women in uniform have made to defend the freedom that the French enjoy today," Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite said in introducing legislation providing financial help for the reburial of veterans from the two world wars.
.....

Some 74,000 American war casualties are buried in France and Belgium, including 30,000 from World War I. The host nations, while retaining sovereignty over the burial grounds, have granted the land in perpetuity to the United States as military cemeteries.

Steve Thomas, a spokesman for the American Legion, said the veterans' group would need some time to look at the legislation. He said the American Legion has always respected the wishes of the families concerning those who died in combat, but noted that "a lot of people may not want to repatriate their fallen loved ones, separating them from their comrades, to make a statement about the French government."

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by renata
More idiocy.
Does she really think it is appropriate to disturb 50 and 80 year old graves in a fit of pique?

wonderful.

My question is: Where did the Republican party dig this nut up?

[The Fool]

Hmmm, wargraves, they are not always a clear cut proposition, they are not always what they seem.

If you look at a WW1 war cemetary you may get the impression that each of the neatly marked graves contains the remains of the person on the headstone or marker. This is not always the case. It may be a large common grave with neatly lined up markers to make it look like something other than a big hole with a lot of bodies placed in it, in any old order, sometimes stacked two or three deep. Not to mention the fact that after so many years, depending on the soil type and moisture levels, you may not be able to identify any trace of a body. Other complications are that at the time of burial speed was often more important than accuracy of identification, a large proportion of the graves are marked "an unknown soldier". There have been a number of cases where people have discovered that they have a grave, even though they are fairly sure they are still alive!

Leave the graves alone.

[Pyrrho]

Another halfwit politician gets his/her name in the papers.

Leave it to some jingoistic idiot to find some way to disturb the honored dead for a meaningless gesture.

They all need to band together, adopt a Congressional resolution that says, "France Sucks!" and shut up.

[Goshawk]

Where did the Republican party dig this nut up?
http://www.house.gov/brown-waite/
http://www.csd.cq.com/elections/Winners/brownwaite.g.html
Education: State University of New York, 1976, B.S.; Cornell University (NY) Labor Studies Program Certification, 1980; Russell Sage College (NY), 1984, M.S. in public administration

Profession: Adjunct faculty member, Springfield College (MA), Tampa, FL campus; Health care consultant

Other Government Service: Staff director, NY Legislature; Member, Hernando County, FL Commission; FL Senate, 1993-2002 She just barely squeaked into office in November, defeating her Democratic rival 48% to 46%, and she's been appointed to serve on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, all of which explains why she's making noise about moving vets' graves--publicity, and she's helpfully jumping on the anti-France GOP bandwagon, plus she's on the Veterans committee, so she can say she's got a legitimate interest.

http://www.house.gov/putnam/pages/committee.htm

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by renata
More idiocy.
Does she really think it is appropriate to disturb 50 and 80 year old graves in a fit of pique?


Yet another reason not to vote.

[susheel]

...and where is the money for all of this going to come from. I hear news that funding for veteran's welfare programs and medical benefits are hard to come by. And then they have one of their reps suggesting a money gobbling project like this.

Is there any way you can unelect this person. If there is, I would highly recommend this course of action.

[iain]

Yes all this stuff is stupid.

For example, the Russian sacrifice to defeat the Germans was massively higher than all the western allies combined.

About 21 million Soviets died during Operation Barbarossa. There were 2 million deaths, mostly Soviet, in the Battle of Stalingrad alone (compared to fewer than half a million US casualties over the whole war).

Would the Nazis have won the Second World War if Stalin hadn't defeated them on the Eastern Front? Probably.

Does this mean that Russia has some sort of moral right to expect the US and UK to support her now? Of course not.

[crocodile deathroll]

Here is what may be on the mind of a passing French
Dogue de Bordeau

[Drooper]

A galactically stupid proposal without doubt.

But there is an ironic twist to this.

Only last year, the French were proposing to dig up Australian war graves in order to build a new airport. Much protest from Australia, plan shelved.

[LW]

Originally posted by iain
About 21 million Soviets died during Operation Barbarossa.
Though, it should be remembered that a very large portion of Soviet deaths were civilian. My copy of Krivosheev's "Soviet Combat Losses" is not at hand right now, but according to it the Red Army lost ~8 million KIA and ~4 million POW (figures may be off by a million or two because of my faulty memory). That brings the total number of dead soldiers to somewhere along 11 million (Soviet POWs in German hands had ~75% death rate, while the corresponding rate was ~33% for Germans in Soviet camps).

[Drooper]

It should also be remembered, that under Stalin's approach to war, Russian soldiers were used as cannon fodder. A situation not far removed from murder.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Drooper:
It should also be remembered, that under Stalin's approach to war, Russian soldiers were used as cannon fodder. A situation not far removed from murder.

Not to mention that he had most of the Red Army top brass murdered during the purges of the 30's, leaving the Red Army woefully inequipped to face the Wehrmacht.

[LW]

Originally posted by Drooper
It should also be remembered, that under Stalin's approach to war, Russian soldiers were used as cannon fodder. A situation not far removed from murder.
I don't think that it was a particularly Stalinist approach. Russia has a long tradition of sending large numbers of brave soldiers to die because of poor training and abysmal leadership.

Stalin certainly didn't value the life of an individual soldier very high, but he wasn't completely indifferent, either. For example, he kicked Mehlis out after he squandered 150000 men under his command in a series of pointless attacks.

A Soviet commander who lost lots of men in an otherwise succesful operation had little to fear from Stalin (for example, Zukov's offensives were very costly but he didn't lose Stalin's favor), but one who had excessive losses in a failed operation might find himself relieved of command (as Mehlis) or even executed (Pavlov, Govorov). Though, as there was a massive shortage of cabable officers after purges, even incabable ones had to be used.

And back to the subject of soldier graves. As far as I know, Finland was the only nation in WWII with an official policy to bring all casualties back to home. Of course this was not always possible (for example, one of my grand-uncles was left on the field. He vanished during a failed counter attack), but there were many cases where men risked their lives to save dead bodies of their buddies. Most of the Finnish KIAs lie in the graveyards of their home counties.

[Tmy]

Im waiting for the bill that will ship the Statue of Liberty back to France.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by LW

I don't think that it was a particularly Stalinist approach. Russia has a long tradition of sending large numbers of brave soldiers to die because of poor training and abysmal leadership.

Stalin certainly didn't value the life of an individual soldier very high, but he wasn't completely indifferent, either. For example, he kicked Mehlis out after he squandered 150000 men under his command in a series of pointless attacks.

A Soviet commander who lost lots of men in an otherwise succesful operation had little to fear from Stalin (for example, Zukov's offensives were very costly but he didn't lose Stalin's favor), but one who had excessive losses in a failed operation might find himself relieved of command (as Mehlis) or even executed (Pavlov, Govorov). Though, as there was a massive shortage of cabable officers after purges, even incabable ones had to be used.

And back to the subject of soldier graves. As far as I know, Finland was the only nation in WWII with an official policy to bring all casualties back to home. Of course this was not always possible (for example, one of my grand-uncles was left on the field. He vanished during a failed counter attack), but there were many cases where men risked their lives to save dead bodies of their buddies. Most of the Finnish KIAs lie in the graveyards of their home counties.

Interesting information LW.

I think the Soviets got much better as the war went on. Their T-34 was a good workhorse tank that's simple design and production made the number of Soviet tanks far exceed the Germans.

I would say ironically the Finnish Winter War of 1939-1940 helped the Soviets prepare. By embarrassing the Soviets in their attempt to quickly grab Finland. Mannerheim showed that the "Russian steamroller" was not invincable.

BTW I would say Zhukov was the best general in the war on any side. Kursk and Stalingrad were his strategy as well as the seige of Lenningrad.

[Mike B.]

Oh yeah...

And the grave thing is really idiotic...

[rikzilla]

I can't believe anyone seriously proposed this! It sounds like an "Onion" article.

So what happens when the US and France mend fences and again work closely together as allies? We gonna dig 'em up again and put 'em back???

-z

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by iain
Yes all this stuff is stupid.

For example, the Russian sacrifice to defeat the Germans was massively higher than all the western allies combined.

About 21 million Soviets died during Operation Barbarossa. There were 2 million deaths, mostly Soviet, in the Battle of Stalingrad alone (compared to fewer than half a million US casualties over the whole war).

Would the Nazis have won the Second World War if Stalin hadn't defeated them on the Eastern Front? Probably.

Does this mean that Russia has some sort of moral right to expect the US and UK to support her now? Of course not.

I would agree with this. World War II is long over. However, with the French there has been a long series of problems since 1944.

I suppose it started during the "Battle of the Bulge" in 1944 where De Gulle refused to shorten his line and give up Strasburg to help a struggling American army fighting the German offensive. Remember his army was equipped with the American equipment given him.

For decades afterwards France seemed to want to thrawt the US at every turn. From pulling out of NATO because it was too US dominated, to not allowing use of air space, to trying to hurt our friends for being too close by blocking his other benefactor the UK from getting into the common market and going to Canada and trying to stir up division there. For the US supplying the French in Indo-China in the 1950s and when the US was fighting there in the 1960s going there and pretending some solidarity with their former colonies because it would hurt the US.

Albright recently made the point that she never understood in the 1990s, France's desire to act as "defense attorney" for Iraq. She made the point where there was clear violations of Iraq not allowing inspectors in the building France would try to say the inspectors were to blame.

No doubt some of the incidents France was in the right, but French policy for decades has been to play off against the US. So the anger with France is kind of deep.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by The Fool
a large proportion of the graves are marked "an unknown soldier".

The British & Commonwealth ones from WW1 at least are marked " A Soldier of the Great War, Known unto God"

I thought the 'french fries' thing was infantile.

This is beyond infantile. It is truly pathetic and rather sad. :(

edited....

"In another swipe at the french...."

This is called "shooting yourself in the foot". The French, no doubt, will find it as pathetic and sad as I do. This is a classic example of someone doing something that must appear to make sense to some minority of internal US opinion but from the outside world just appears as bizarre.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by LW

I don't think that it was a particularly Stalinist approach. Russia has a long tradition of sending large numbers of brave soldiers to die because of poor training and abysmal leadership.

Stalin certainly didn't value the life of an individual soldier very high, but he wasn't completely indifferent, either. For example, he kicked Mehlis out after he squandered 150000 men under his command in a series of pointless attacks.

A Soviet commander who lost lots of men in an otherwise succesful operation had little to fear from Stalin (for example, Zukov's offensives were very costly but he didn't lose Stalin's favor), but one who had excessive losses in a failed operation might find himself relieved of command (as Mehlis) or even executed (Pavlov, Govorov). Though, as there was a massive shortage of cabable officers after purges, even incabable ones had to be used.

And back to the subject of soldier graves. As far as I know, Finland was the only nation in WWII with an official policy to bring all casualties back to home. Of course this was not always possible (for example, one of my grand-uncles was left on the field. He vanished during a failed counter attack), but there were many cases where men risked their lives to save dead bodies of their buddies. Most of the Finnish KIAs lie in the graveyards of their home counties.

I don't mean poor leadership, training or supply.

I mean, sending waves of soldiers over as expendable in an effort to overwhelm the enemy with numbers. This is practiced to some extent by most armies, but not without risk mitigation - for example, use of surprise, artillery bomabardment, armoured support. Stalin didn't encourage any mititigation of risk, just keep sending them over the top.In fact, he was more likely to encourage withholding armoured support, because tanks weren't as expendable.

The closest parallel I can think of is the Napoleonic use of columns. The French would advance at steady pace in a column exposing the narrow front rank to fire. As they were mown down in the front, the followers would step over the dead. With a long enough column they would reach the enemy lines, but would have deliberately sacrificed many llives in the process.

Stalin promoted tactics that made this tactic look conservative.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Drooper


I don't mean poor leadership, training or supply.

I mean, sending waves of soldiers over as expendable in an effort to overwhelm the enemy with numbers. This is practiced to some extent by most armies, but not without risk mitigation - for example, use of surprise, artillery bomabardment, armoured support. Stalin didn't encourage any mititigation of risk, just keep sending them over the top.In fact, he was more likely to encourage withholding armoured support, because tanks weren't as expendable.

The movie "Enemy at the Gates" has a very good opening scene of the defense of a city by Russian soldiers. Not sure how many historical errors were made (at the time I heard it was pretty accurate), but in a way it was almost as gut-wrenching as Saving Private Ryan.

When the Russians were sent to war, they gave a gun to only every second soldier. Others were given a handful of bullets, with the instructions to pick up the gun of anyone killed, and continue fighting. When some of the Russian soldiers tried to retreat, they were killed by their own soldiers behind the lines with a machine gun.

[Drooper]

Other examples of Stalin's attitude towards soldiers and civilians, include the 40,000 reputedly murdered during his purges prior to the war.

Also, his refusal to allow an evacuation of Stalingrad - including children. This was presumably to increase the stakes for the defenders.

Also, the widespread use of "penal units", sent on suicide missions. These were often nothing more than political prisoners.

[LW]

Originally posted by Drooper

[quote]This is practiced to some extent by most armies, but not without risk mitigation - for example, use of surprise, artillery bomabardment, armoured support. Stalin didn't encourage any mititigation of risk, just keep sending them over the top.In fact, he was more likely to encourage withholding armoured support, because tanks weren't as expendable.
Do you happen to have any sources for that claim? Preferably not cold-war propaganda ones.

It may be surprising to you, but Stalin did encourage policies to reduce casualties. "... [T]hey fired 200000 shells and some people complained that they fired too much. I say that they should have fired 500000 shells or more. If they had fired less they would still be there."
-- Stalin, April 1940 (source: minutes of the Red Army crisis meeting 14-17 April 1940, published in Finnish as "Puna-Armeija Stalinin tentissä")

Red Army commanders did worry about excessive casualties. One illustrative example comes from Soviet 1944 summer offensive on Karelian Isthmus. Tapio Tiihonen researched the archives of Leningrad Front for his Ph.D. Thesis. He noticed that there was a large difference between the casualty reports sent by the divisions to the Front HQ and the reports sent from there to STAVKA. On some days the difference was 30%. I don't remember exact figures, but if the front lost 5000 men in some bad day they would report only 3500 of them upwards. The rest 1500 men would then be reported in small pieces during quiet days.

If, as you claim, Soviets used wasteful tactics purposefully, then why did the Front HQ engage in this deception? They went far enough to report nonexisting Finnish counter attacks on quiet days to hide the most costly blunders.

Stalin promoted tactics that made this tactic look conservative.
Please, give me one specific example of such Stalin-promoted tactic and state where it was used.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by LW
Please, give me one specific example of such Stalin-promoted tactic and state where it was used.

Falsified reports were to protect their back against charges of incompetence and summary removal, possibly execution.

Stalin was interested in losses, only from the perspective that they were compromising the chance off victory. Excessive losses, well beyond expectation, would indicate that.


He wasn't interested in minimising casualties.


for some examples, see above


I just want to add a quote:

A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.

That was the mind of Stalin.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

The movie "Enemy at the Gates" has a very good opening scene of the defense of a city by Russian soldiers. Not sure how many historical errors were made (at the time I heard it was pretty accurate), but in a way it was almost as gut-wrenching as Saving Private Ryan.

When the Russians were sent to war, they gave a gun to only every second soldier. Others were given a handful of bullets, with the instructions to pick up the gun of anyone killed, and continue fighting. When some of the Russian soldiers tried to retreat, they were killed by their own soldiers behind the lines with a machine gun.

Excellent freaking movie. Did some research a few years ago to check on some accuracies of the movie after I first saw it and it seemed to be pretty close to reality.

As for the digging up the dead? It's over the top, as is most things with most politicians. Couldn't possibly care less really. Maybe they should consider asking surviving family members first though.

[LW]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
The movie "Enemy at the Gates" has a very good opening scene of the defense of a city by Russian soldiers. Not sure how many historical errors were made (at the time I heard it was pretty accurate), but in a way it was almost as gut-wrenching as Saving Private Ryan.
And like Saving Private Ryan, the movie degenerated quickly after a good opening.

When the Russians were sent to war, they gave a gun to only every second soldier. Others were given a handful of bullets, with the instructions to pick up the gun of anyone killed, and continue fighting.
That wasn't done on purpose. Because of the idiocy of the high command, most of Red Army depots were lost in the first few months of the war. That led to a severe shortage of almost everything, including rifles. You can be assured that the regular infantry units were given as good equipment as possible.

I don't know if any such "unarmed" attacks happened during the real battle of Stalingrad. Chuikov [commander of Stalingrad proper] didn't mention any in his memoirs but that doesn't mean they didn't.

One such "unarmed" attack that I'm aware of wasn't conducted by Red Army at all. The Finnish counterattack of I/JR 30 (or 19, that infantry regiment was renumbered to confuse Soviets and I can't remember now what the number was during the battle) at Patoniemi, Taipaleenjoki on Christmas 1939. The batallion had received several dozens of replacements who didn't all have rifles. The unarmed men also took part in the attack with the orders to pick up rifles from casualties. And this happened in the Finnish army, possibly the most "casualty averse" of all WWII armies.

When some of the Russian soldiers tried to retreat, they were killed by their own soldiers behind the lines with a machine gun.
There are few reports of such occurrences, though only from German sources, as far as I know. Whether they really occurred or were they German propaganda, I don't know. However, there are Soviet accounts of officers summarily executing individual retreating men or men who refused to advance. It is possible that the MG stories grew out from these kind of situations, but it is certainly possible that on some occasions MGs were really used to stop retreaters .

[Advocate]

I think digging up the dead is a terrible idea and was likely not taken seriously by any but a few very angry people. OTOH I think the era of US-French cooperation is over. I suspect in the long term the conflict between US/UK and France/Germany will expand beyond Iraq and may well be seen later as more important historically than Gulf War 2 will ever be. I don't want to compare it to the Cold War (I don't expect us to start pointing ICBMs at Paris.) but there are no precedents I know of with greater similarity than the start of the Cold War following cooperation in WW2.

[headscratcher4]

This is an idea that only a moron could embrace.

I have problems with French policy just now, as I do with President Bush, but I’ve seen nothing too indicate that France and the French are un-appreciative of American help in liberating France over 50 years ago. The potential war with Iraq – it policy reasons and the reasons for not doing it – have little or nothing to do with what occurred than. Nor, will it be of great importance to the long-term relationship between France and the US – as two countries that ostensibly accept the rule of law, human rights, justice, etc. We will find ways to get back together, and to fall apart again. It is the nature of every international relationship.

This Congresswoman personifies the concept of mentally challenged.

I am reminded of the ANZAS memorial at Gallipolis (sp?) in Turkey. There, the Aussies and the New Zealanders were seen as invaders (by the Turk/Ottomans). They fought a deadly battle, and huge numbers on both sides were killed. The Aussies and the New Zealanders are buried there still – in enemy territory, as it were. There is a very moving monument constructed by the Turks over the site of the battle and graves. There, the words of Ataturk are particularly poignant:

THOSE HEROES THAT SHED THEIR BLOOD
AND LOST THEIR LIVES... YOU ARE
NOW LYING IN THE SOIL OF A FRIENDLY
COUNTRY. THEREFORE REST IN PEACE.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
JOHNNIES AND MEHMETS TO US
WHERE THEY LIE SIDE BY SIDE HERE IN
THIS COUNTRY OF OURS... YOU, THE
MOTHERS, WHO SENT THEIR SONS FROM
FARAWAY COUNTRIES WIPE AWAY YOUR
TEARS; YOUR SONS ARE NOW LYING IN
OUR BOSOM AND ARE IN PEACE. AFTER
HAVING LOST THEIR LIVES ON THIS LAND
THEY HAVE BECOME OUR SONS AS WELL.'
KEMAL ATATURK

When I was there, Aussies and New Zealanders were crying over the beauty of the sentiment…that enemies could forgive and move on. I guess it is only really ugly when the battle is between friends….

[John Bryce]

For the World War II history buffs:

Battlefront.com (http://www.battlefront.com)

[Doubt]

Originally posted by John Bryce
For the World War II history buffs:

Battlefront.com (http://www.battlefront.com)

yup,

Combat mission is a great game. Even has pretty good physics for the tank shells. I have both CMBB and CMBO. Want to play by e-mail?

[Doubt]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
There, the words of Ataturk are particularly poignant:

THOSE HEROES THAT SHED THEIR BLOOD
AND LOST THEIR LIVES... YOU ARE
NOW LYING IN THE SOIL OF A FRIENDLY
COUNTRY. THEREFORE REST IN PEACE.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
JOHNNIES AND MEHMETS TO US
WHERE THEY LIE SIDE BY SIDE HERE IN
THIS COUNTRY OF OURS... YOU, THE
MOTHERS, WHO SENT THEIR SONS FROM
FARAWAY COUNTRIES WIPE AWAY YOUR
TEARS; YOUR SONS ARE NOW LYING IN
OUR BOSOM AND ARE IN PEACE. AFTER
HAVING LOST THEIR LIVES ON THIS LAND
THEY HAVE BECOME OUR SONS AS WELL.'
KEMAL ATATURK

When I was there, Aussies and New Zealanders were crying over the beauty of the sentiment…that enemies could forgive and move on. I guess it is only really ugly when the battle is between friends….

Adding to this:

Ataturk was the Turkish commander at that battle and the first president of modren Turkey.

[Reginald]

It's silly comments like this that move the disagreement up a notch. Well it would if anyone took it at all seriously.

Much as it annoys me that the French have taken the stand that they have, a stand that I believe has now moved into the realms of "unreasonable". I fully support their right to do it. Why does suddenly everything French become in someway bad?

Public opinion is moveing slowly away from their standpoint in the UK, and there is the beginings of the standard "oh the french moan moan" starting to surface in the tabloids.

I saw an item on the TV in which they interviewed french people on the street, I was shocked (and to a small degree humbled) by the way they were basically saying "we dissagree on this but we agree on many things more". I thought that was a mature stance to take. They didn't appear to be rubbishing the US or UK.

I think that thier Gov is wrong, I think that Chirac is wrong, but I can't bring myself to dislike people just because I think they are wrong. I guess if I did I would be a very lonely person by now.

[headscratcher4]

http://www.house.gov/htbin/wrep_findrep

This website will allow you to send an email to Ginny Brown-Waite. I encourage everyone to use it and let her know that her stupidity, opportunism and foolishness knows no bounds!

Ok, this doesn't qite do it. This is her homepage:


http://www.house.gov/brown-waite/

go to her site and in the send a message link, put in this zipcode: 34601.

This will allow you to send a message to her regardless of where you live rather than taking you to your own member of Congress (for those in the US). Flood this office with email letting her know she's a Putz!

[Questioninggeller]

Wow that is too bad that people take the Frensh having an opinion other than the U.S.-YES MAN so seriously. I truly hope they don't remove those bodies, disrespect the dead, waste money, ect.

Afterall, aren't those graves legally the United States' land, not French land anyway? I thought I read that back in the day, about right to the land where the soldier's are buried.

The French know the U.S. (& allies) liberated them, SO FU****G WHAT!!! That is not the issue, we are talking about now not then. Yes the U.S. "saved" them, does that given them the legalilty to always be right?

[renata]

Originally posted by Mike B.


I would agree with this. World War II is long over. However, with the French there has been a long series of problems since 1944.

I suppose it started during the "Battle of the Bulge" in 1944 where De Gulle refused to shorten his line and give up Strasburg to help a struggling American army fighting the German offensive. Remember his army was equipped with the American equipment given him.

For decades afterwards France seemed to want to thrawt the US at every turn. From pulling out of NATO because it was too US dominated, to not allowing use of air space, to trying to hurt our friends for being too close by blocking his other benefactor the UK from getting into the common market and going to Canada and trying to stir up division there. For the US supplying the French in Indo-China in the 1950s and when the US was fighting there in the 1960s going there and pretending some solidarity with their former colonies because it would hurt the US.

Albright recently made the point that she never understood in the 1990s, France's desire to act as "defense attorney" for Iraq. She made the point where there was clear violations of Iraq not allowing inspectors in the building France would try to say the inspectors were to blame.

No doubt some of the incidents France was in the right, but French policy for decades has been to play off against the US. So the anger with France is kind of deep.


Actually, tensions with France and Europe go far longer than that. I posted this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15358) , it did not get much response

Anyway, the article referenced in it, http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030310fa_fact has an interesting perspective on continuing American/European antipathy, and, in particular France. The article is long, but worth reading.


The face of the unloved American did not, of course, come into focus all at once. Different generations of European critics added features to the sketch depending on their own aversions and fears. In the early nineteenth century, with Enlightenment optimism soured by years of war and revolution, critics were skeptical of America’s naïve faith that it had reinvented politics. Later in the century, American economic power was the enemy, Yankee industrialism the behemoth against which the champions of social justice needed to take up arms. A third generation, itself imperialist, grumbled about the unfairness of a nation’s rising to both continental and maritime ascendancy. And in the twentieth century, though the United States came to the rescue of Britain and France in two world wars, many Europeans were suspicious of its motives.

....

Too often, the moral rhetoric of American diplomacy has seemed to Europe a cover for self-interest. The French saw the Jay Treaty, of 1794, which regularized relations with Britain (with which republican France was then at war), as a cynical violation of the Treaty of Alliance with France, of 1778, without which, they reasonably believed, there would have been no United States. In 1811, it was the British who felt betrayed by the Americans, when Madison gave in to Napoleon’s demands for a trade embargo while the “mother country” was fighting for survival.

....

The European commentators’ dismay at the tyranny of American materialism was disingenuous, since many of them had come to the United States to repair their tattered fortunes or make new ones. Frances Trollope decided to sojourn in America when a rich uncle did the Trollopes the disservice of marrying late in life and, still worse, begetting an heir.

....

Many people in the governing circles of both Britain and France were sympathetic to the South, not only because of the threatened interruption of raw-cotton supplies but also because a Confederate victory would preëmpt the emergence of a gigantic and powerful nation. In November, 1861, when an American warship stopped the British steamer Trent to remove two Confederate agents bound for London and Paris, the ailing Prince Albert had to intervene to restrain British calls for war. According to Philippe Roger, whose “L’Ennemi Américain” (2002) is a brilliant and exhaustive guide to the history of French Ameriphobia, the fate of the South became a sentimental fashion in Napoleon III’s Paris.

....

When the American republic failed to break up, the European angst about its economic transformation and territorial expansion became a neurosis. For some time, the British government, worried about the growing imperial rivalry of the new Germany and the French Republic, had complacently assumed that American expansionism could be manipulated to keep its rivals at bay. If the American fleet would, for its own purposes, prevent European undesirables from straying into the Pacific at no cost to the British taxpayer, jolly good for the Stars and Stripes. The Spanish-American War of 1898, which the French treated as the unmasking of Yankee imperialism, was looked at in London with relaxed tolerance.

....

It was self-evident that France and Britain should have been grateful for the mobilization of American manpower in 1917, which tipped the balance against the Germans and Austrians. Colonel Charles E. Stanton’s declaration “Lafayette, we are here,” and the subsequent sacrifice of American lives for a European cause, seemed to herald a restoration of transatlantic good feelings. But, as Philippe Roger (and others, like the historians David Strauss and Jean-Philippe Mathy) explains, if the war created a brief solidarity, the peace more decisively destroyed it. When Woodrow Wilson failed to persuade Congress to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and America withdrew into isolationist self-interest, all the old insecurities and animosities returned. Wilson was perhaps the most detested of all American Presidents by the French, for whom his self-righteousness was compounded by his failure to deliver results.

American generosity (in the French view) toward German reparation schedules fed into the conspiracy theories that seethed and bubbled in the anti-American press in the nineteen-twenties and early thirties. In “The American Cancer,” Robert Aron and Arnaud Dandieu went so far as to argue that the First World War had been a plot of american high finance to enslave Europe in a web of permanent debt, a view that was echoed in J.-L. Chastanet’s “Uncle Shylock” and in Charles Pomaret’s “America’s Conquest of Europe.” The newspaper France-Soir calculated the weight of debt to the United States at seventy-two hundred francs for every French man and woman. Nor was there much in the way of sentimental gratitude for General Pershing’s doughboys. Why, it was asked, had the engagement of American troops on the western front been delayed until 1918? The answer was that the United States had waited until it could mobilize a force large enough not just to win the war but to dominate the peace.

For French writers like Kadmi-Cohen, the author of “The American Abomination,” the threat from United States was not just economic or military. America now posed a social and cultural danger to the civilization of Europe. The greatest “American peril” (a phrase that became commonplace in the literature) was the standardization of social life (the ancestor of today’s complaints against globalization), the thinning of the richness of human habits to the point where they could be marketable not only inside America but, because of the global reach of American capitalism, to the entire world. Hollywood movies, which, according to Georges Duhamel, were “an amusement for slaves,” and “a pastime for the illiterate, for poor creatures stupefied by work and anxiety,” were the Trojan horse for the Americanization of the world. Jean Baudrillard’s belief that the defining characteristic of America is its fabrication of reality was anticipated by Duhamel’s polemics against the “shadow world” of the movies, with their reduction of audiences to somnolent zombies sitting in the dark.

The charge that the United States was imposing its cultural habits on the prostrate body of war-torn Europe returned with even more force after 1945. Americans thought of the Marshall Plan (together with the forgiveness of French debts) as an exercise in wise altruism; European leaders like de Gaulle bristled with suspicion at the patronizing weight of the program. Complaints against Coca-Colonization, the mantra of the anti-globalizers, were already in full cry in the nineteen-fifties. But as Arthur Koestler, who bowed to no one in his loathing of “cellophane-wrapped bread, processed towns of cement and glass . . . the Organization Man and the Readers’ Digest,” put it in 1951, “Who coerced us into buying all this? The United States do not rule Europe as the British ruled India; they waged no Opium War to force their revolting ‘Coke’ down our throats. Europe bought the whole package because Europe wanted it.”

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Wow that is too bad that people take the Frensh having an opinion other than the U.S.-YES MAN so seriously. I truly hope they don't remove those bodies, disrespect the dead, waste money, ect.

Its not just that the french aren't being Yes-men. The U.S. doesn't really need them to join the coalition. There is a difference however between disagreement and direct interference.

I think some of the reasons why france is getting such a rough time lately:
- Their hipocracy. They don't like being marganalized; yet they have no problem doing the same thing to several countries that support the American action and are trying to join the European union. They complain about the Americans not listening to world opinion, when it was just a few years ago that they were testing nukes in the pacific, an activity opposed by more countries than oppose the Iraq invasion.
- Their motives are suspect. They have been selling stuff to the Iraqis for years (some of it may be illegal). Iraq owes them money. Their influence is in decline in the world and they want to be seen as being influential. Are they opposing action because they really feel its the wrong thing to do, or is it because of their other interests.
- They don't care about the consequences of their actions. "Destroy NATO by interfering with Turkish requests for defense help? No problem. Make the U.N. irrelivant by failure to enforce its sactions? No problem."
- They are very inflexible. The weapons inspectors have found some nasty stuff lately (chem Bomblets, drones). Yet France fails to budge. Britian tries to set up a compromise, yet France says they won't approve ANY more resolutions

Oh, and they're a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys.

That said, I agree, some of the actions taken are really really stupid.

[crocodile deathroll]

If I ever die in an act of war or a battle, I really couldn't care less where they bury me because I would not be aware of my condition. They can uncerimoniously throw me to the crocodiles for all I care. So what is the big deal about war dead?

[Advocate]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
If I ever die in an act of war or a battle, I really couldn't care less where they bury me because I would not be aware of my condition. They can uncerimoniously throw me to the crocodiles for all I care. So what is the big deal about war dead?

Its not about the dead. Whether you believe in an afterlife or not, it doesn't seem like the dead would care where their bodies are placed. It is about the living, the surviving relatives. It does often matter to them where the dead are buried.

[iain]

To address these points :

Originally posted by Segnosaur - Their hipocracy. They don't like being marganalized; yet they have no problem doing the same thing to several countries that support the American action and are trying to join the European union. They complain about the Americans not listening to world opinion, when it was just a few years ago that they were testing nukes in the pacific, an activity opposed by more countries than oppose the Iraq invasion.If hypocracy is now something to villify a nation for, I doubt any would pass the test, least of all the US.
Their motives are suspect. They have been selling stuff to the Iraqis for years (some of it may be illegal). Iraq owes them money. Their influence is in decline in the world and they want to be seen as being influential. Are they opposing action because they really feel its the wrong thing to do, or is it because of their other interests.A fair question to ask, but the detractors seem to have answered it and found France guilty on supposition and guesswork.

They don't care about the consequences of their actions. "Destroy NATO by interfering with Turkish requests for defense help? No problem. Make the U.N. irrelivant by failure to enforce its sactions? No problem."I think France would argue that it is the US that doesn't care about the condequences of its actions : launching a war unilaterally which could destabilise the middle east for many years and cause a great deal more suffering than it prevents. There are clearly arguments on both sides here.
They are very inflexible. The weapons inspectors have found some nasty stuff lately (chem Bomblets, drones). Yet France fails to budge. Britian tries to set up a compromise, yet France says they won't approve ANY more resolutionsNot quite true. France won't approve any resolutions which involve going to war at this time. And talking of inflexibility, the US has made it clear that there will be war on Iraq no matter what anyone else says or how the UN votes - you can't get much more inflexible than that.

[Smalso]

While we're at it, lets dig up L'Enfant's grave and send his remains to France. Then level Washington and get a good patriotic American to redesign it.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by iain
To address these points :

If hypocracy is now something to villify a nation for, I doubt any would pass the test, least of all the US.

True. But, france is trying to take the 'high road' here... (or at least the high road in the anti-war opinion.) And when you decide to take the 'high road' you had better not have any skeletons in your closet.

Originally posted by iain
To address these points :
A fair question to ask, but the detractors seem to have answered it and found France guilty on supposition and guesswork.

We know France is owed money by Iraq. We know they have some financial dealings with Iraq for legal items. Admittedly, many of the other things france is accused of is not verified; however, considering many of the anti-war people love chaning "no war for Oil", the fact that France also has billions at stake here should be remembered. (That doesn't mean that is the only or even main reason why France is vetoing everything, but it is a mark against France.)
Originally posted by iain
I think France would argue that it is the US that doesn't care about the condequences of its actions : launching a war unilaterally which could destabilise the middle east for many years and cause a great deal more suffering than it prevents. There are clearly arguments on both sides here.

But the issue is not whether the war would cause years of suffering. (Well, that is an issue, but it wasn't the focus of my point.) By first agreeing to a resolution, and then vetoing any enforcement of it, France makes the U.N. look like it is unwilling to act. (If they really didn't want to act, they shouldn't have signed the resolution to begin with.)

Originally posted by iain
Not quite true. France won't approve any resolutions which involve going to war at this time. And talking of inflexibility, the US has made it clear that there will be war on Iraq no matter what anyone else says or how the UN votes - you can't get much more inflexible than that.

The U.S. would not be going to war if Saddam would have complied with 1441. (The U.S. would have wanted to,but they wouldn't have gotten the support. Of course, it was a pretty good bet that Iraq wasn't going to comply.) They have also said they would not go to war if Saddam stepped aside. The U.K. has tried to get a resolution which gave specific points Saddam had to follow, and set a deadline. Those are signs that the U.S./U.K. side is at least trying to compromise.

France has said it will veto any resolution. Period. Regardless of when the 'deadline' is for, or what is found. That is inflexible in my books.

Even if the inspectors find Saddam sitting naked on top of a nuclear missle aimed at Washington, france would probably veto any action.

[phobos]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

- They don't care about the consequences of their actions. "Destroy NATO by interfering with Turkish requests for defense help? No problem.

Actually, I agree with the French on that one.

US / Turkey: We'd like to send NATO troops to help defend Turkey.
France: Really? What's the danger?
US / Turkey: Saddam. He might try to attack. Missiles and stuff.
France: Oh? Why?
US / Turkey: Because we're about to attack him.
France: And here we were thinking NATO was supposed to be a defensive alliance. Silly us; clearly, it's actually there to provide support to any cowboy member who wants to invade someone without fear of reprisals. Piss off.

If the US wants to invade Iraq, it should make its own arrangements to protect its accomplices in the region. NATO shouldn't be party to it.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by phobos

Actually, I agree with the French on that one.

US / Turkey: We'd like to send NATO troops to help defend Turkey.
France: Really? What's the danger?
US / Turkey: Saddam. He might try to attack. Missiles and stuff.
France: Oh? Why?
US / Turkey: Because we're about to attack him.
France: And here we were thinking NATO was supposed to be a defensive alliance. Silly us; clearly, it's actually there to provide support to any cowboy member who wants to invade someone without fear of reprisals. Piss off.

If the US wants to invade Iraq, it should make its own arrangements to protect its accomplices in the region. NATO shouldn't be party to it.

At the time, Turkey had not agreed to participate in any military action in Iraq. For all intents and purposes, they were neutral. In theory, Iraq and Turkey should have no quarrel. But it was felt Turkey may be in danger because of events it was not a participant in. Sounds like a reason to come to their aid to me.

I do wonder though, why was NATO actually asked to help with Turkish defence? I figured most of the resources would be coming from the U.S. anyways, so why get NATO involved. Does anyone know if there's some rule which says that only NATO can directly assist other NATO countries?

[Advocate]

Originally posted by phobos


Actually, I agree with the French on that one.

US / Turkey: We'd like to send NATO troops to help defend Turkey.
France: Really? What's the danger?
US / Turkey: Saddam. He might try to attack. Missiles and stuff.
France: Oh? Why?
US / Turkey: Because we're about to attack him.
France: And here we were thinking NATO was supposed to be a defensive alliance. Silly us; clearly, it's actually there to provide support to any cowboy member who wants to invade someone without fear of reprisals. Piss off.

If the US wants to invade Iraq, it should make its own arrangements to protect its accomplices in the region. NATO shouldn't be party to it.

As far as I know, Turkey is staying out of the war. France as part of NATO has an obligation to protect Turkey if it is attacked (as does the US, but the US supported doing so). This is not an obligation to the US or UK (who are attacking Iraq). It is to Turkey, who is a member of NATO and is not attacking anyone but is likely to be attacked.