What's the deal with the French?
 

I am not an American but I want to understand this: Why do so many Americans not like the French?

The explanation I get is that the US helped the French out in WW1 and WW2 and the French, among others, declined to go to Iraq.
If America would have been attacked, the French, German, the United Nations and the NATO would have supported the US.
You might say now, damn dude, the US HAVE been attacked. But, which country attacked them? Not the Iraq. There is no proven link between Al Queeda and the Iraq. Osamistan doesn't exist, the extremists hide everywhere from the Middle East to Western Europe.
Of course Iraq was a totalitarian regime like the 3. Reich, and the people there were happy to get rid of Hussein but thats a different story.
So, is there anything I don't know about the French/American relations that I don't know?
And I don't want to hear some unqualified crap or lies from f*ckfrance.com or other questionable sources.

you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. By the way, the difference between going after Hitler and going after Saddam is that Hitler actually declared war on us, and with his V2 rockets he had a real chance of actually being able to strike at us. War with him was justified. Saddam didn't declare war on us, and Hitler's V2 rockets were far and away superior to Saddam's little toy missiles that couldn't even travel 100 miles. In short, the dude was not a threat to us, hitler was.

As for why some americans hate france, let's not beat around the Bush. It's because they're idiots. They've bought into the president's bullshit statement way back before the war started that "anyone who is not with us, is against us." They then bought into the president's bullshit about renaming food with "french" in it (freedom toast on Air Force One, freedom fries, etc).

Are they really mad at france? Probably not. They're just sheep who are following the leader no matter what he does or says.

If they are mad at france, then they're unamerican because France chose not to get involved, and freedom of choice is supposed to be an american value. How we can invade a sovereign nation to impose american values on it while making a pariah out of another nation for expressing american values is beyond me.

It seems like something very simple to me.

The French have always looked down upon American culture, and American citizens. As a result, they have been a subject of ridicule in the US for years.

Along comes the Iraq war, and the French decide to not only stay out, but fight us in the UN. This affects the American view of the French negatively. It also doesn't help that in America it is believed that the French owe us something for the fact that we saved their nation in the Second World War, and helped do the same in the First World War; or the rumors that have surfaced about the French having illegal deals with Saddam Hussain which affected their reasoning.

It doesn't have to do with being sheep or BS like that, but with a view that has become imbedded in our culture that has manifested itself in the current Francophobia. Fortunatley it seems to have died down (thank God, because if I actually went into a restaurant that served "freedom" fries or toast, it would quickly get a drink from a Molotov cocktail).

There is long history, beyond Iraq, that accounts for the love/hate affair between France and America.

Many people say that France looks down on America because they resent losing their prominance on the world stage and America in turn, looks down on the French because of it.

Also, French and American economic interests are often at odds.

Except that this statement isn't true. Don't believe everything you see in the movies. I've been there and never ran into one snooty french person. The only people that got funny looks were the idiot americans who were running around yelling out catchphrases in phony french accents. And hey, if you wanna make a total jackass out of yourself, then you should expect to be treated like one.

Yeah, you're right I guess. God forbid you should stand up for what you believe in. That simply ain't right! We Americans just don't cotton to that kinda behavior do we?

And that viewpoint is total crap. Gee, think maybe we owe 'em something for helping us get our freaking country started? Or have we forgotten the assistance they gave us against Britain despite the GREAT danger it put them in (back then Britain was not exactly a wuss country and they had a lunatic king and a long history of conquering anyone that pissed them off).


Yeah I think it does. We're a nation of followers who don't want to think for ourselves. That's why people are still saying Iraq was full of terrorists. They sure aren't saying that because they examined the evidence, since there isn't any evidence to support that claim. They're saying it because the president said it.

Frankly the uproar against france wasn't materially different from that one geeky kid in middle school that everybody picked on. Everyone ELSE is beating up on france so we'd better do it too.

It's the herd mentality. Unfortunate though it may be, the country is chock full of sheep and has very few shepards.

There's a conception that French citizens are phenomenally rude to American tourists (maybe even immigrants). So a lot of us have a sort of attitude of "Well fuck you, then!" I've never been to France, but I've met some Frenchmen and have yet to meet one I didn't like.

Eh, just wanted to interject a bit of history here.

The V2 was not an ICBM (a missile with intercontential range). The devolpment of the ICBM along with the reduction in size of the necular warhead was what started the cold war.
Rather, we entered we fully entered the second world war because if Hiler had taken Europe he would be in a nearly invincible position. With the west conqured he would be able to focus on the Russian front instead of fighting a two front war. Beyond this is just speculation, but with Europe under control and Russia either beaten or occupied Amercia would have been the last remaing enemy. Dwarfed by the combined might of the Germany, Italy, and Japan we wouldn't have stood a chance.
The official reason we were able to enter WWII was because of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The public outcry resulting from it's bombing put public support behind going to war and allowed the President to bring the US into WWII.

Sorry about the long winded essay, just wanted to clear up some misconceptions. I'm pretty sure all of the above is correct, if not let me know :D.

~jrclark

Shakran even a hardcore "frog hater" like myself doesn't hold France's lack of action in regards to Iraq against them, more just the way they went about it and all the illegal deals they had going in the background.

jrclark,

You're both right and wrong.

The V2 was, as you say, not an ICBM. The United States was never, EVER in danger from German rockets.

However, the US did not enter the war to help defeat Nazi Germany because it feared a strengthened Axis power in a conquered and consolidated Europe. It dis so because Hitler declared war on the United States. There is quite a bit of politics mixed up in all this, including an anti-war congress, pro-interventionist President, pro-isolationist public etc, but that's the general ghist of it.

Let me also just add one more comment. Even a victorious Nazi Germany was unable to mount an invasion of the United Kingdon, just 20 miles across the Channel, as 95% of all military historians agree and historical fact proves, do you really think they could attack the United States across the Atlantic Ocean?

Mr Mephisto

Actually Mr. M we did it because Hitler declared war on us, AND because we looked at the V2, knew they were working on V3 and 4, and that 4 would probably be able to hit us ;)

well, time to get this thread back on topic.

I am an American and I do not hate the French. I actually quite like the French. On the two week trip I took there I only had one person be rude, which is a lot less than what I have experienced here. I person find the idea of "freedom" fries to be one of the stupidest things ever. I actually believe the french were right in not helping us invade Iraq. I do think that Saddam needed to be taken out, we just needed to be honest and admit we did it to get at the oil, not because he had WOMD.

heh, my bad (just looked it up again) but you're right:

Dec 7, 1941 - Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor; Hitler issues the Night and Fog decree.
Dec 8, 1941 - United States and Britain declare war on Japan.
Dec 11, 1941 - Germany declares war on the United States.

But Britain probably would have fallen if the US hadn't stepped in when we did. If we hadn't been sending supply ships to Britan even before we officially entered the war it would have fallen much earlier. Once again correct me if I'm wrong, and sorry about thread jacking :D.

Hm, I haven't heard so much about that lately. Is there any link to an essay/proof ?

---
Mr Mephisto, it's true that Germany at that time couldn't conquer the UK, but by having the most powerful submarine fleet, they could have isolated Britain, deploy troops and invade a weakened Britain.

And I am sure they had plans for attacking America during the following years.

But we switched the topic. I appreciate your comments so far!

I'm too tired to look up anything right now. I just remember awhile back Bill O' Reilly reaming the French on his show after American soldiers found some anti-tank missles that were illegal for Iraq to have and that were dated from as late as 03'.

Plus there is oil for food scandal.

And backdoor oil/military/various infrastructure contracts.

Lance Armstrong

Heh good one :thumbsup:

The correct timeline is December 7, 1941 - Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and declares war on the U.S.

December 8, 1941 - U.S. declares war on Japan in a near unanimous vote (only one dissenting vote - in fact, the first female in the House and the only one to vote against both WW1 and WW2 - a pacifist)

December 11, 1941 - Hitler honors the treaty that formed the Axis (tri-partite IIRC) in that he will declare war on the enemy of his ally - the U.S. in return declares war

The time in between these two was a period of debate over what to do with Germany - after all, though there were U-Boat incidents earlier, no other hostilities have engaged and after all, only Japan attacked - when Hitler declared war, he spared Congress the task of debate and they proceeded to declare war to kick his ass.

And at the time, the V2 wasn't exactly known in the U.S. - in fact, it wasn't even used and was still being developed at that time.

The bigger concern, though known only by a few select people (the President in specific, a few major high ranking generals, and top scientists) at the time was the threat of a possible German atom bomb. It was all theoretical at the time of course, but by the time war had been declared, FDR had already allowed for money to go into what would be the Manhattan Project.

That was a far bigger concern - Hitler wouldn't have to invade the UK or the US if he had one of those babies.

And if you want to know a cool fact, before WW2 began, the U.S. had already drafted a war plan called RAINBOW.

In it, there was a theoretical attack on the U.S. in one of its territories - namely the Philippines or Hawaii - by Japan. With the possible aggression in both Europe and Asia, Germany was the enemy in Europe.

The plan called for Germany first, then Japan.

So actually, much of why we went to war, had already long been planned out - it was just a big shock to actually even have the war in the first place.

fight? to be of another opinion that the US is "fighting" them?
geez, its still like kindergarten ...


A penetration depth chart of the Me 264 from May 12, 1944
Note: penetration depth equals half range.
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/264-6.jpg

Shakran you are so wrong about the Vengence weapons it isn't funny. June 13th, 1944 was the first time a Vengence weapon was used on the British. The Brits first learned that the krauts were working on them in December 1942, which was a full year after we declared war on Germany. By this point, US troops were already fighting German troops in N. Africa. The maximum range of both the V-1 and V-2(or A-4) was 200 miles, hardly enough to reach America. The difference was that the V-2 had a slightly larger payload than the V-1. The Germans WERE working on 6 newer versions of the rocket when the war ended, however, the best only managed to double the elder rockets' range (to 400 miles) and decrease flight time to 17 minutes. So, no, the Vengence weapons had not a damn thing to do with the United States declaring war on Germany.

http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/v.html

As to American's feelings about France, I will say this. As long as I have remembered, there has been the feeling that they are/were cowards, or what have you, thanks to their less than stellar war record since Napolean's glory days ended. It has become much more pronounced ever since they opposed us invading Iraq. Frankly (no pun intended), neither country is doing much to repair relations with one another.

I will admit that the frogs did help us greatly with our war for independence, however, I don't think it was because they were being alturistic. Rather, they enjoyed watching us being a thorn in the side of their age old enemy, the British. Fact is, we only "won" the war because we were being difficult enough that when the French and the British started warring again, the Brits just said "Fuck it, we'll deal with you later." Then you have the War of 1812, which was basically the British coming back saying "Ok, that thing with the French has died down thanks to their own revolution, we want our colony back." That didn't turn out too good for the Brits.

So then along comes The Great War, and amazingly, the Brits and French are working together! I mean, these two warred on and off for the past 1,000 years, and now, English troops are in France, fighting with the French against the Germans! WOW! All the old kings must have been turning in their graves. Basically, both sides kicked the shit out of each other, thanks to new technology and outdated tactics. They are in a stalemate, with the Germans making very, very slow gains, when the Yankees come riding in, like the calvary in those old western movies. They give just enough Umpfh to the Allied cause to drive the Hun back, who then capitulate, everyone is happy, rah rah!

Then comes Hitler, he riles up the down trodded Germans into war, and off they go. Again, the British and the French fight side by side against the Germans, but this time, the Germans are using new tech AND new tactics, while their adversaries use new tech and old tactics. Insert ass whooping here, now there isn't anyone in continental Europe to stand up to the Nazis. Battle of Britain occures. British ability to produce war supplies almost exhausted when a small bombing raid on Berlin causes Hitler to divert his bombers from factories to cities. Factories then manage to produce enough planes to help the grim British resolve to win. Invasion of Britain called off, turns sights on Russia, and proceeds to lose vast numbers of men and material in the Steppes. Declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor, Stalingrad, Kursk, D-Day, etc. Hitler offs self, Germany surrenders, that's it folks.

So, the United States kind of helped in WW1, and definately helped in WW2. France helped in ARW. Now, the French think we are stupid, well there are lots of stupid people in the US, but not ALL of us are. US thinks all French are snobs, see last sentence. Neither side is willing to budge, the end. I hope this sums up how things have developed up to this point. I think we all need a group hug.

The French Revolution itself was long before the War of 1812 (though it did lead to many of the wars of that period).

Actually, when the French Revolution was in flight, radical groups did invade other nations under the banner of the Revolution. It was so radical at the time that the monarchies of other nations in Europe were threatened (after all, the French had just beheaded their own King).

Add in Napoleon, and we have the Napoleonic Era which, essentially from the French Revolution (say, 1796) to 1815, was non-stop war in Europe.

The War of 1812 itself could be considered a part of the sideshow of Europe at the time when Napoleon nearly conquered all of Europe. Yep, he had France, Spain, Italy, allies in Austria, had the German states, Poland, and was in Russia before his famous defeat at the hands of good old General Winter.

The War of 1812 itself wasn't the British coming back and saying "lets take you on" - there were other things that happened that caused a stir and aggression which lead to war (of which, the U.S. can be blamed for some as well as the Brits).

The U.S. actually FAILED miserably throughout the entire war - it failed to take Canada, its own capital was sacked and burned.

Of course, things go to show, you can lose many battles, but still win the war.

And FWIW, many of Britains best troops were in Europe fighting the man known as Napoleon. When Napoleon was first exiled, that freed many troops to go to America. Of course, by then, a treaty was already being negotiated - and of course, Napoleon comes back, rounds up an army, then is defeated at Waterloo (1815).

The War of 1812 to Europeans is a sideshow to the first true total war.

I never really believed in the sterotype about the French. Then I worked closely with them on a software implementation project. As it turns out, they are a bunch of cowardly assholes... at least the ones I met. :)

The French/American realtionship is far too complicated to boil down to just an Iraq or military support thing. There are economic, political, and cultural tensions at work.

France is currently at work trying to solidify its position within the EU. The EU is being formed to combat American economic dominance and the potential dominance of behemoths like China.

Culturally, the French make no secret of their resentment towards the invasion of American culture and slang into their society.

Politically, there are many power struggles within the UN and internationally over America's use of the death penalty, import duties, trade relationships with other countries, etc.

For those who say the French are all a bunch of cowards, it may be a fun joke but their military strength throughout history and their military technological prowess is among the greatest in the history of the world. The French foreign legion, the French resistance during WWII, and the French military forces fighting in places like Afghanistan and in UN peace keeping forces are highly trained and very professional.

There are significant reasons for the tensions between France and the US and they are often stoked by very public refusals of US requests on the world stage (not the least of which was allowing planes to fly over French air space when we bombed Libya). The mistaken bombing of the French embassy by US planes in those raids didn't help their impression of the US either.

There're lots of reasons for the dislike, Iraq is but one part.

i agree with onetime, but would go further...the relations france-us are quite copmliex and have been--i could go on and on about this topic but will try not to.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 do not pretend to understand everything about what the french state was thinking in august 1940--they were wrong about the maginot line, they were leaning against the wrong door--they were flanked and they knew it, nothing really to be done---and they were haunted by ww1.
you want to think about what that last one meant, go to a french village, and french village, and look at the memeorial columns in the cnetre of town--the french recruited on the buddy system going into ww1--the americans did the same during the civil war--this maximized the trauma of war on local populations by wiping out entire swatches of the male population of a given town in maybe 30 seconds if they drew point on the wrong day, in the wrong place. i think the reality of massacre was more evident to the french state in august 1940, ww1 was a much bigger presence--because it was france and britian (and their colonies) that took ww1 full in the face--they did not walk in at the end the way the americans did--it was a different war there, a national trauma the effects of which had not faded by 1940.

what i do know is that much of the surrender was about trying to save paris, save the countryside in a situation where the french knew they were fucked strategically. they thought they might be able to work out a better deal for themselvces, and maybe just wait things out. it was a calculation. you might not agree with it. but one thing for sure is that the narrative dear to american conservatives in the period since the start of bushwar is simply wrong, a lie.

maybe the problem is that conservatives tend to have trouble imagining the american being flanked, being in a position where they a fucked militarily with nothing to be done, and the decision is to undertake a fight they know they will loose with great devastation to boot, or fold the cards. but then again, these same folk often cannot face what happened to the americans in vietnam.

there are other things, but i'll stop, this is already too long

What's the deal with the French, you ask?
It's quite simple really.

DSM-IV Code 301.81, Narcissistic Personality Disorder

;)

here ya go:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/I..._040420-1.html
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/16176.htm
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2...t/7_audit.html

Please, excuse my berevity. It was late, I was tired, and I didn't want to go into a long drawn out history of WW2. I will say that the Soviets were many times more responsible for defeating Nazi Germany than the United States. If somehow the Russians and the Germans honored their non-aggression pact, it is doubtful that America would have been able to defeat the Nazis. At the least, casualties would have been exponentially higher. I am of the belief that Russia would have beaten Germany by itself if it had to. Quiet simply, it had so much more men and material that it would have been inevitable. Please note that my timeline wasn't "Stalingrad, D-day, etc." I did mention Kursk, which was also important. Towards the end, there were too many catastrophes for the German army to mention. The Courland pocket was a massive disaster, etc. However, as I said before, I wanted to be brief on the subject because the entire events of WW2 don't necessarily have to be discussed concerning this subject.

whocarz: happens all the time on boards...not a problem in itself--in the context of this particular discussion, i reacted to it mostly because i saw in the abridgement a kind of summation of what was going on through the whole of it.

powerclown: are you serious with your post?

I'm not sure if powerclown refers to the French or the American with the description. But, knowing France and the society as well as the politics going on there, I can tell that this is no description of the country.

Geez, and all this time I was sitting here thinking it was because Mr. Burns didn't deliver the Trillion Dollar Bill.

Well, the really funny thing is that the the V-2 program was headed up by this one Nazi named Werhner Von Braun.

And boy did the Americans want to get their hands on him.

And he put the Americans on the moon in 20 some odd years.

I gotta believe that if this guy wanted to, he could have had an ICBM in a few years.

The really funny thing is that Hitler hated Von Braun, and once remarked that if he (Hitler) didn't need his brain, he would have shot him years ago. Even funnier is that Eisenhower apparently hated Von Braun (because Ike hated all Germans and nazi Germans even more so) and he (Ike) remarked that if he didn't need Von Braun so much, he would have shot him years ago.

True story.

You're wrong in just about every way.

Hitler could not take out the RAF.

You know, "never in the field of human conquest has so much been owed by so many to so few"

The few being the RAF.

Hitler needed to cross the channel. He couldn't do that with the RAF all over him. And then, even if he knocked out the RAF, the RN would have had something to say about any channel crossing.

It's AMAZING to me sometimes how Americans think.

See where I grew up (Canada) we were always taught that the US declared war on British North America (Canada) and we fought back with a everything we had and a few British Regulars who could be spared from the war with Napolean, and a whole bunch of first nations warriors who wanted nothing to do with Uncle Sam having seen what you guys did to their brothers and beat your asses back across the boarder.

You see, it was the USA after all who declared war, not the Brits. They were too busy fighting Napolean to be so stupid as to start a war thousands of miles away.

There isn't a Canadian kid alive who doesn't know the name General Issac Brock or Tecumseh the first nations warrior chief.

Strangely enough, as soon as the Brits polished off Napolean and could turn the full fury of their military on those gob-fly Americans, you yanks sued for peace. But not before we burned the white house to the ground and President Madison ran away dressed as a woman into the hills of Virginia.

Maybe a bit off-topic, dealing with American tourists, but somehow it is weird how many of them think that dollars are a valid currency everywhere around the globe, even in countries (like mine) where they have euros. Talk about weirdness when you see an american tourist trying to buy a meat pie (?) from the local market with dollars...

:confused:

Heh, ironically, it is probably a shock to many people but the current exchange rate is 1 Euro for $1.24 US - to find people were actually shocked at that is kind of amazing

And I did post a thing about the War of 1812 up there in reply to whocarz - essentially, the British would not have cared about the U.S. at all during a period when Napoleon was running around Europe...

Captain Kirk, please excuse my ignorance of the War of 1812. It was never taught in school, and even though I fancy myself a bit of a history buff, I have no vested intrest in America's most unimportant war. I do recall that I had heard you Canadians had sacked the capitol during the war. However, as I said earlier, I was quite tired at the time, and was trying to be as brief as possible, since the relevance of the War of 1812 to the topic is quite miniscule. I'm sorry if I offended you, or worse yet, reinforced your view that all Americans are slobbering dullards. And hey, who knows, perhaps one day we'll pay you back? For the capitol I mean. ;)

French people suck
I just gotta say
Made the jet fighters
Go out of their way
Hating Yankees too much
Those beret-headed nuts.
They can stick the Eifell Tower
Straight up their butts.


Last time I flew Air France
Played a tune on my Uzi
And made the sissies dance.
Killed a hundred or more
And I had a ball.
Those freakin' frog suckers
Be the death of us all.


French people suck.
French people suck.
French people suck.
French people can suck my...

-The Meatmen

why, what a sophisticated intervention, matthew. really adds to things. thanks alot for posting it.

france is very beautiful. damn shame its fulla french folk.

ehh. thread just reminded me of an old 80's punk song and thought - what the hell.

(though i did think their decision to not let our pilots fly over their precious air space when we went after Khadaffi, not sure about the spelling, speaks volumes)

Yes and no. If you want to get into it the US warhawks wanted to declare war because they wanted Canada, something denied during the Revolution. So they used the FACT that the Brits would stop US merchant ships, and force OUR sailors to fight for them against the French, which is definately an act of war. So we declared war first while they enacted it.

Yeah we got defeated accross the border, and had Washington burned, but in no way was the Republic in serious danger. The Brits didnt have enough people, and by the end of it when they tried to run up the Mississippi on us we sent them back to the sea. Did we win? No. Did we lose? No. Was it a stupid war? Yes.

Okay I say this in all seriousness.

I myself, when I think of france, I think of everything in humanity that is weak. I think of surrender.

The reason why?

Okay when someone who is out of country see's America, they see our President now. They don't see me, they don't see those around me.

Same for me...when I see France I see it's government and the actions it has taken. I see stereotypes. I've been please with the frence people when I've interacted with them...but the french government... no thanks.

I don’t understand why everyone has gotten down so much on France on the issue of their involvement in Iraq... they are not only closer to Iraq and have a higher Middle Eastern population but have also recently, within the last year, had been trying to outlaw Religious Attire in schools in France. As you can imagine, this didn't go over well with people of Middle Eastern descent. With all this going on added with the bombs going off in train stations in Spain (and having also found bombs in French train stations train stations) I can see exactly why they didn’t just jump on the bandwagon with Dubya and go head first into what almost seems like a NeoCrusade.

France has been despised by some long before Iraq. As for their actions regarding Iraq, their "we will veto no matter what" statement coupled with the exposure of their illegal dealings with Saddam for oil puts them in a very bad light.

France never did anything america wouldn't do in its place.

I agree 100% filtherton.

http://www.geocities.com/~worldwar1/.../rumsfeld.html

The National Security Archive at George Washington University in February 2003 published on the Web a series of declassified US documents detailing the US embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967.

The documents show that during this period of renewed US support for Saddam, he had invaded his Iran, had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and on the Kurds in his own country.

The US response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific US priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding US ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats

Right.. we made a mess, and are cleaning it up. I don't see France or Russia taking any responsibility for contributing to Saddam's regime -- I see them taking advantage of an oil-for-food program and trying to block us diplomatically from unseating a corrupt dictator.

Seretogis,

To be perfectly honest, I don't know what the French are doing in their country. I only know what the media and politicians over here present as their position, which may or may not jibe with street reality.

For all I, or anyone else over here knows, the French and Russian people may be taking all kinds of heat and/or responsibility from their local media and/or elected officials/one another for their parts. We may be being given a one-sided portrayal in order to 'other' those we might otherwise agree and unite with.

For example, if the common people over there and the common people over here were united in their opposition of supporting rogue regimes, we might be more effective in stopping our respective governments from engaging in such behavior. Put this way, you might understand why I think various entities have a vested interest in ensuring we don't see what they are criticizing their government for.

When I refer to France and Russia, I am referring to their governments, which are accountable to the French and Russian people.

I was confused by your use of the term, 'them,' which implied that you were referencing a composite whole. I suspect you would take umbrage at someone else characterizing our nation's entire political machine by the words or perceptions of a single, or even small group, of person(s).

We still only know what Putin 'says' by the sound bites provided to us. We have no idea the context, politically or socially, that surrounds whatever one-liners we are privy to. Suffice it to say, I don't feel comfortable declaring what the French or Russians, government or otherwise, are feeling or saying about these issues based on the limited coverage we have of foreign affairs.

We also have experience that indicates government officials are not always, directly or indirectly, accountable to the 'people.' I also find it interesting that when the public does something many people over here don't agree with or understand, then the people's decisions aren't so respectable anymore.

We made a mess, we've made many messes. We're only "cleaning it up" because it is politically expedient for the current leadership. Did you loathe america as much as you apparently loathe the french and the russians during the entire span of time between the rumsfeld/saddam embrace and our invasion? The time when we made the mess and were not cleaning it up?

Differences on particular positions aside, it should be stated that the French and the Americans are historical allies and will remain so for the forseeable future. I think it's about time to focus on that fact.

If only we would each stop disagreeing with the other.

You HAVE to respect a countries sovereignity. If they don't want to have anything to do with a war then it's just logical that they will not get involved in it in any way.

That's true. I'm spending an exchange year here and I am happy to see that all the prejudices about the stupid, ignorant and war-loving Americans were just wrong.

editted out

I'm just throwing my 2 cents everywhere, but, NO. This wasn't illegal in any way. It may have been kinda unorganised but not illegal.

Paperwork found of Saddam donating $25 million to Chirac's personal reelection campaign IS illegal under the oil for food.

It would be ignorant to say the the US, or most any other country for that matter, has never had illegal dealings with other countries and/or people.. the only problem is that there usually isn't the exposure there so you don't hear about it as often.

To put in my few cents, it mostly seems to be that Americans tend to believe the French to be snobbish, which has been my personal experience with the French. Their culture breeds distinct clique-ishness with their policies to protect the origin of their language and all. That isn't a bad thing on it's own, understand me... It's just one of many things.

Also, in NE U.S., we deal a lot with Quebec natives... or the dreaded French-Candian. Due to requirements that any product sold retail in their province must, by law, be printed in French (along with English) and other things such as the general snobbishness of many Quebecians, Americans tend to just disregard the French altogether on many occasions.

Also, the helping them through WWI and WWII, and getting not much back (don't even start on the Statue of Liberty) hasn't helped.

To be honest the same could be said of Germany and indeed the entire world...

Actually your post probably illustrates the biggest thing - many people dislike the French simply because it is so ingrained in popular American culture now whether or not they really believe or agree with everything.

Its like whether or not you know anything about WW2, it seems most everyone has heard that "we saved France's ass in WW1 and WW2," which is easily a big debatable topic.

But they're such common beliefs and thoughts now that valid or not, they're accepted and its a usually a mutual dislike which is funny because in the end, as long as your money is good, who cares :icare:

Absolutely Xephyrs. The only country in Europe that would openly humiliate a foreigner with the audacity to try to speak their language.

...and we DID respect their sovereignty. We didn't fly over their air space. It wasn't a war, we were going after a terrorist, what in the world their motivation for their decision could have been other than to be a thorn in our sides is beyond me.

I've been to Paris. Their reputation precedes them. They are pompous, arrogant, asses.

xephrys: on your "historical" claims, read the rest of the thread--you are at best misinformed.

more generally:

it is interesting that folk are so willing to make firm decisions about an entire country based on tourist interactions. particularly given that the same folk would be undoubtedly snippy as hell about the reverse happening to them as americans.

this and the persistance of the right's damage control line floated after the unsc rejected the obviously fradulent american attempt to justify pre-emoptive war by blaming france would be funny were they not so tiresome.

I would have to disagree... France is, by far, more of a pain in the ass than Germany or (most) of the rest of the world. As for you last statement in my quote above, I know quite a bit of WWII history, and I'd be shocked if you can find a debatable point that says we DIDN'T save their asses (along with the rest of Europe's with the help of England and Russia).

xepherys (cool name, btw): the outline of what i would say in response to your misreading of ww2 is in no. 22 on this thread.

*shrug* We let it happen, and we (the people) will have to fix it. That is how this country works.

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! :o)

Agreed!

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...

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.

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.

for 3 years i lived 20 minutes from the French border in Bitburg, Germany. Their reputation is well deserved.

i lived 5 years in france, mostly in paris, matthew.
my experience there has no relation to yours.
do you speak any french?
i did find that the main thing that divided kinds of treatment meted out, particularly to americans, was the ability to speak (or at least try to speak) french.

tourist areas of paris apart, of course. but i did not find it any different than the kind of shit you get in almost any tourist area, if you struggle with the language. try getting anyone to not be an ass to you in philadelphia around the liberty bell, or in any tourist-heavy area of nyc, if you dont speak english. same deal.

...so we had different experiences. I have vivid memories of being humiliated (well, my dad anyway - i was 12 at the time) in a resteraunt for trying to order something off the menu, made fun of by the waiter for not knowing the french money and apparently not tipping enough - at which point, surprise, the fuckin waiter knew how to speak english the entire time.

Every experience i recall from France is vastly different from every other country i remember visiting during my years there. They fit the bill of everything i had ever heard about them - rude, arrogant assholes.

From what i've seen Americans in general are curious when they see foreigners. Want to know where they are from, what it's like there, what brought them over there.

But whatever, we saw different things. I certainly won't argue that your experience has no relation to mine, I just remember the French taking pleasure in humiliating those "trying to speak their language."

I generally take isolated experiences for a grain of salt given that in my own country I have had assholes make fun of me or others either for appearance or action

Actually, thats pretty common even now to see random guys driving around and making fun of someone's driving or ethnicity (maybe mocking an accent)

And the WW2 thing has been addressed xephyrs by me - i'm no fucking retard about WW2 and indeed history has been one of the biggest things for me throughout - its not that we didn't save their asses, its that people forget that they were instrumental in our nation's founding. The debate is whether they owe us a lot or they owe us little to none now.

I don't argue that the French were not an essential part in forming our nation. They did help out a great deal, because it was in their national interest to form a trading ally with a neighbor that wasn't controlled by its arch-nemesis, the British Crown. I attribute the split with the French to almost two hundred years ago. First the Washington Administration sent Ambassador John Jay to England to obtain a commerce treaty, because the newly formed government and its people still relied heavily on trade with England. This infuriated France, they saw it as a slap in the face. Unfortunately, the situation in France was volatile at best and it seemed as if there was a new government forming every few months. Now, after the Adams Administration was elected, they recalled James Monroe in order to put in place a more favorable Federalist Delegation. Pinckney was already there, but the French would never talk to him. So Adams sent in John Marshall and Elbridge Gerry, and basically the French tried to buy off the United States. At first, President Adams tried to keep Marshall's report from reaching the public because he knew that it would incite warmongering in the brand new nation that was not necessary. Not to mention that it would bring back George Washington whom he knew would want the Federalist Pariah Alexander Hamilton as his second in command with a new standing army. However, one of the most notorious newsmongers in the nation, James Thomson Callender unwittingly brought the XYZ Affair in the public view which, much to the dismay of his republican compatriots made Adams a popular President. Eventually, the anti-Federalists fell out of favor in the public eye, because they were very sympathetic to the French. So basically, that sentiment against France has remained in the United States for over two hundred years. It's nothing new.
Now for your reading pleasure, sources! :thumbsup: (Very basic ones though, for a more in depth reading, I suggest the Anti-Federalist Papers and Scandalmonger by William Safire)

The XYZ Affair

Jay Treaty Info

James Thomson Callender

Sorry guys, hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are assholes everywhere. It seems like if you had just one bad experience with a French person mixed with the existing image of the French that you just associate that one bad image with every single one. Lets face it, we all know assholes where we live and they're not all French. Get over it.

As for the WWII argument, that seems like the only decent argument out there to me. France fell to Germany within a week. We unded up pulling their asses out of the fire along with the rest of Europe with the combined force of the US, England, and Russia. Some might say that it was our job as allies to do that and I have no argument there. My only problem was that they made no attempt to repay the losses that we had while trying to recover what they gave away, seemingly, so willingly.

I'm certainly over it. I just told one experience. If you'd like me to write 3 pages worth of 3 years of experience, I don't care enough do do it. Point being, as a neighbor of france for 3 years, an ample period of time to challenge any preconcieved notions of the people as a whole, i can't think of one pleasant experience i had there. And i was 12 years old. Whoah, the eifle tower..cool, check that out, huh...who's this asshole making fun of my family for being american.

Personal experiences coupled with your WWII argument, well...French people suck. Of course, on an individual basis - that stereotype is easy enough to break, it just hasn't happend yet.

Guys, don't forget that we fought Vietnam for them too... Vietnam was a French territory before WWII, and they were afraid of it getting taken over by the communists. I was just wondering, originator of this thread, what country are you from??? I am good friends with a German citizen/resident that says that most Germans, and for that matter, many Europeans don't like the French either. It just seems to me that they think that they are better than everybody else, but as soon as there's somebody with an army knocking at their door, their first resort is letting somebody else bail them out.

They are pussys that's why

Quebecians???

WTF?

I think you mean, "Quebecers" in English, or "Quebecois" en francais.

As far as products being sold in Quebec having to be printed in French and English, uh, that's the same for the entire country of Canada. Not just Quebec.

I would imagine that it makes good sense.

Like General Motors for example. They have a new car coming out in the states called the Buick "Lacrosse" That one got a few giggles in Quebec since "Lacrosse" in Quebec is a slang term for masturbation.

It's precisely this kind of American BULLSHIT that makes the rest of the world think Americans can be such total imbeciles sometimes. You don't hear any other country in the world forever launching into the old tired refrain, "we saved your asses twice"

Exactly what do you want the French to do? Suck your cock forever because you think they somehow owe you for WW2? No-one likes to be constantly reminded that you somehow owe them a debt and that as far as you are concerned, you can never repay it anyway. It just doesn't work that way.

I sometimes think that the French irritate Americans so much because the French think that they are better than you, and you think that you are better than the French. When they are not in awe in any way shape or form of the fact that you are American, you think them arrogant. How arrogant.

Wrong. I hate to defend the French, but you are wrong. France was invaded on 5/10/1940 and capitulated on 6/22/1940. That's just a bit longer than less than a week. They also seriously got the shit kicked out of them. French Casualties for WW2 (most of which came in 1940 when the Germans invaded): 201,568 killed in action, 400,000 wounded. United States Casualties (this is for both theaters): 291,557 killed in action, 670,846 wounded. The numbers are quite similar, yet the French fought for 43 days while the US fought for roughly 3 years. They were slaughtered. As I've said before, the German blitzkreig strategy simply overwhelmed their enemies, and France was no different. We were lucky, because by the time we went in, they had stopped using blitzkreig and had reverted to using defensive lines much like the Maginot line. Please educate yourself a bit more before you make such silly claims.

Also WRONG. The French left Vietnam in 1956, after the debacle at Dien Bien Phu nearly two years earlier. The siege of Dien Ben Phu lasted for 170 days. The French had a cumulative total of 15,709 men, of whom only 3,290 came home alive, many which died in prison camps after the battle. The Viet Mihn had somewhere on the order of 100,000 men, of which they took 8,000 KIA (some works estimate 12,000 KIA and 20 to 30,000 WIA) 15,000 to 20,000 WIA of whom a great number certainly must have died from the results of poor medical care. We did not "bail" the French out of Indochina. We went in almost 8 years after they left.

I was starting to write a massive post about why I think the French act well ... French.

Its pretty pointless, so I’ll spell out the key hypothesis on why they act French.

Massive inferiority complex.

I, too, was stationed in Bitburg. :thumbsup:

However, you and I had different experiences. I spent many, many, many days in Luxembourg and France and found the french only to be rude to obnoxious Americans, of which there seemed to be an endless supply.

I made friends who were Spanish, Italian, Belgian, French, and German while I lived there. They would often complain to me, "If we go to America, they demand we speak English. When they visit our country, they demand we speak English. Why don't Americans learn OUR language for once?"

The stereotype of Americans for many Europeans is that we're loud and obnoxious. We don't do much to dispel that stereotype.