Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
1.
france is not a single entity any more than the u.s. is--there is a complex a range of opinion there as there is in the states---politically france is more interesting to me than the state is because they have something closer to a real political spectrum, a much more developed Left culture (even still)---i find it useful to look at the american situation through a grid dervied from the french political scene--a vewipoint from which it becomes clear that the cliche that america is a single party state with two right wing is validated without effort.
|
*shrug* We let it happen, and we (the people) will have to fix it. That is how this country works.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
2.
on the recent wave of anti-french sentiment: this one is simple--televised propaganda in the period that immediately followed the american defat in the unsc. the right figured they would blame the flimsiness of the case for going outside the un sanctions regime on france. many people bought it. many people watch too much television. i dont have much to add to what shakran said about this, above. well i might, but it would sound snarky.
|
I wasn't aware that the anti-French sentiment was recent. Long before Freedom fries, I remember a pretty noticeable distate for the French (and French-Canadians, at least in Michigan). Snarky? Excellent word!
)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
3.
on the cultural imperialism question: there was a view in france, particularly on the left, that they were trading occupations after world war 2----german for american--one military, one cultural. probably the best single book on this perception is a short novel by margueritte duras called "the war".
the conflicts this generated were legion--the generator for it initially might have had something to do with the reconstruction but there are lots of them, really-----there were problems with the americans coldwar world, hostiliy from the americans as a function of the french communist party as a serious mass political organization---attempts to tamper with elections like you saw in italy in the late 1940s----the political effects of the cold war cannot be overstated...this paragraph is compressed/simplified almost beyond coherence---but there we are.
|
Agreed!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
4.
world war 2: this one really irks me.
first off, the american history of ww2 routinely erases the role of the soviet army in defeating germany. the story usually goes like this:
...
which is typical in that it skips the entire period after stalingrad, eliminates the various feints undertaken by the us to damage the soviets (following on truman's famous "let them bleed each other white" remark in congress) that prompted the americans to respond to stalin's pleas for a second front by invading first north africa, then italy...it is a hero-narrative that deconstextualizes d-day in an attempt to make the ending of ww2 the exclusive function of american actions--which it was not--the story is simply bullshit. it might make people feel--i dont know--something--but it is bullshit.
|
Where have you heard this bullshit story? That's never been what I've read or been taught. As for the French, specifically in WWII, When did Russia move West of the Elbe? I can't recall (or find on any map) where they did to any useful extent. After Kursk, they basically were able to push through Poland and into Germany. That was about the bulk of it. The effect that had on the war? HUGE! The effect it had directly on France? NONE! *shrug* I've never been taught to think that the US was the end-all of WWII, not even in the military. England, Russia and the U.S. (also to include Canada on D-Day) worked together from different angles, with different strategum and were able to overcome the Nazis, with a great loss to ALL countries involved. I can't say I've ever heard anyone argue that...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
4a.
on the french resistance: well the american preferred to try to prop up degaulle and the "free french" because on the ground the vast majority of the resistants were pcf. on the other side, the pcf trafficked in its claims to *be* the resistance for years on its own, and tried to erase the fact that they did not organize much of anything until after hitler invaded russia. either way, the americna story about the french resistance, to the extent that there is one, is yet another cold war relic. the resistance was a big deal. that resistance was predominantly communist. so the americans erase it. instead, you get "the french are cowards". that is not history. but see the next paragraph.
|
Again, I've never heard this aspect of history told the way you say... I've never been taught, read of, or thought that the French were cowards, at least in the sense again of WWII. The resistance was primarily Socialist, though I'm not sure about Communist, however when was this erased? Most books that revolve primarily around D-Day and the U.S. in France talk deeply about the French resistance. It's even made it to Hollywood in such films as Band of Brothers, where one city is protrayed as having resistance memebers willing to help the U.S. "any way we can". Sounds brave enough to me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
4b.
on ww2 in general: this one gets complicated quickly---the story is pretty well known--too often you get a facile, idiotic set of interpretations derived mostly from world war 2 films in which the grizzled american gi enters some ww2 situation and kills faceless, ideology-less nazis in great number across the neutral backdrop of the french countryside---according to these films (not reality) the french were simply cowards.
|
I would say that the Nazis are construed as, if anything, zealots... ideology-CRAZED, not ideology-less. The overall views, even direct from Germans alive today from that time period is that it was brainwashing in an indirect way. Hitler was in power long before he attacked Poland. His youth groups, his public policies, his social reforms all led to the people loving him. He was charismatic, and many of the things he did really WERE great for his people. Aside from being a crazed warmongerer, bent on the destruction of Jews, he wasn't a bad guy (note the off sarcasm there). I'm not saying I'm a fan of the guy, but before the attack on Poland, and further attrocities that were commited, what he did for Germany was outstanding. The people really BELIEVED what he did was best for them, even throughout much of WWII. Besides, anyone who thinks that the U.S. Propoganda machine within the media is bad (which it is), the Nazi regime media propaganda was NOTORIOUS. Never before or since has there been such single-sided slanting of the truth, not even in the good ol' U S of A.
I probably have other points, but these seem to make me feel good for now.