Comments on: No more years? (Andrew Sullivan edition)

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:34:12 +0000

The Americans and French dislike each other (at least as political stereotypes) because of similarities, not differences.

By: George

George — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:49:15 +0000

S. Anderson: thanks for the link. Not to nitpick, but something about that sentence at the bottom of the Wiki page is odd. For one thing, it’s not clear what “estimates” refers to exactly, the actual resistance or phony post-war claimants. The previous sentence is about the phonies, while the reference to “active armed members” implies actual members. Also, I usually see a range of estimates cited from low to high, rather than the other way round. Don’t mean to be obstinate. Do you have another cite?

By: fatwhiteduke

fatwhiteduke — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:39:36 +0000

The question “Why is France the bogeyman in US rightwing circles?” has a simple answer, and that is that there are almost no US voters of French descent. The French people are extraordinarily attached to their land and were the only European population that did not migrate en masse to the New World at some point in their history. And why are the Germans so conspicuously un-demonised? Because half the US population can claim German descent. So it all comes down to who you can safely bash. Bash the French – you lose no votes. Bash the Germans, Italians, Poles… (left as an excercise for the reader).

By: S. Anderson

S. Anderson — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:21:37 +0000

> 500,000? That is double the > highest estimate. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance > Estimates range from 5% of > French population to about > 200,000 active armed members and > possibly ten times that of > supporters. The present population of France is 62M. 5% of that is 3.1M. Obviously the population of France was smaller in the 1940s, although I don’t know by how much. Let’s say it was half the present population (it was probably higher than that). 5% of that is 1.5M. So the estimates are 1.5M to 2.0 M supporters, and about 0.2M fighters. Jet, you look like you’re just pulling your numbers out of thin air. What are your sources?

By: George

George — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:57:19 +0000

Interesting figures. More French casualties than I would have guessed. I do see that asterisk, however, noting that the three sources gave “very different” figures for certain countries, including France, and that the highest estimates were used for the table. Do you know what the low estimates were? I’d also be curious when these deaths occurred. Presumably most military casualties occurred in or after 1944. Is that the case for civilian casualties as well? In any case, I do not deny that many French lost their lives in WWII, nor do I deny that many French admirably resisted the Nazis against great odds. What I do assert is that many, many more French willingly collaborated with the Nazis, starting with the decision in 1940 to negotiate the indefinite occupation of their own country and capital, up to and including the mass deportation of Jews to death camps.

By: yabonn

yabonn — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:24:24 +0000

(about france defeat in ww2) Defeat, even surrender, is not the same as pre-emptive capitulation. ... Mind boggling.

There.

Well, i think we're pretty much rock bottom here. Jerry Lewis, or bad smell maybe...

By: Cranky Observer

Cranky Observer — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:05:28 +0000

> with an incredibly fat man from > Texas wandering around Paris > complaining that there’s nowhere to > get a decent McDonalds, McDuff, Please go back to my original post. I am aware of the shortcomings of my fellow US citizens in the international arena. Why do you think I sought out an international employer in the first place (and note that I was working at a private manufacturing company, not a university or NGO, so “academics” doesn’t apply here)? Specifically, to broaden my horizons and fill in gaps in my cultural understanding. Well, some gaps were filled in all right – just not in the direction I expected going in. Also read Frank’s post farther up: if USians, Brits, Canadians, and Spaniards all think poorly of the French (and I would add Germans as well), just maybe the French have the problem and not the others? Maybe not, but something to think about. In any case, the question was, why do the Repubs have so much success with the “we hate the French” meme. I gave you some reasons why. If you choose to reject them, that is fine, but I think you will then have a bit of difficulty with the question. Cranky

By: George

George — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:40:18 +0000

John Q: I’ve having some difficulty with the comments system. The first time I post a comment, I get an error screen. If I go back, the comment is not posted. If I reload, the comment is double-posted.

By: George

George — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:37:01 +0000

There was some fighting in that war, I believe. The exact battlefield circumstances that led to the sacking of Washington, I don’t recall. Defeat, even surrender, is not the same as pre-emptive capitulation.

By: George

George — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:30:43 +0000

There was some fighting involved in that war, I believe. The exact battlefield circumstances that led to the sacking of Washington I do not recall. Defeat, even surrender, is not the same as pre-emptive capitulation.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:05:14 +0000

“My own opinion is that France’s decision in 1940 to let the German army occupy their country and capital without a fight ought to have permanently disqualified that nation from its status as a world or even regional power.” War of 1812?

By: jlw

jlw — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:00:20 +0000

per wikipedia article on the French resistance: “Estimates range from 5% of French population to about 200,000 active armed members and possibly ten times that of supporters.”

By: George

George — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:55:02 +0000

Sorry for the repeat post. At first I got an error screen.

By: George

George — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:47:49 +0000

Dude, you yourself refused to provide proof for your side of the argument. I happen to agree with your side of the argument, but please: if you don’t deign to provide evidence, you can expect none. Ultimately, no absolute proof is possible on this point. It’s subjective: how much actual individual would constitute a national resistance? My own opinion is that France’s decision in 1940 to let the German army occupy their country and capital without a fight ought to have permanently disqualified that nation from its status as a world or even regional power. But post-war, the geopolitical decision was made to rehabilitate France, rather than tear it apart and rebuild it as with Germany and Japan. Thus the Resistance (which was real enough, though of debatable significance) grew into a national myth, overshadowing the much more widespread collaboration of the French government—and nation—with the Nazis.

By: yabonn

yabonn — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:45:33 +0000

I’m open to evidence. Of course not. You’re right back from one of these “france hating for dummies” sites. It’s that certain mix of crappy syntax, ridiculous claims, and rabid hatred of france that gives you mental midgets away. 100k fighting for the germans and 2k resistants. You’re making a fool of yourself, you know? Shoo.