I happened upon one of my bookmarks of a fascinating 2003 debate on the Ryze's "500 Citizens of the World" Forum:
On the subject of whether attacking Iraq was justified, some person living the USA had writen:
"With friends like the French, who needs enemies?"
A Italian man (Fabrizio Lanata) responded:
"yes, they should have thought twice before making you a gift of your independence from the uk..."
Some woman( Lorian Weston) from the USA then wrote:
"A gift??"
I responded:
"I think that what Fabrizio is referring to ... is this:
The campaign and the victory [Yorktown] that led to the creation of a country called the United States of America was accomplished by the following:
Troops outside New York City under George Washington … and … an army in Virginia under the French General Marquis de Lafayette … French forces in Rhode Island under the French General Comte de Rochambeau … a French fleet at Newport under the French Comte de Barras … and a French fleet in the West Indies under the French Comte de Grasse.
George Woodbridge summed up that victory thus:
" The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory. " And, by the way, the British actually surrendered to the French. But Rochambeau … refused the sword presented to him and directed that it be given to General Washington.
Freedom means liberty and your statue of liberty is also French ... you could rename it the Statue of France ... no meaning would be lost ... for in the US ... freedom and France must necessarily mean the same thing. Calling "French fries" ... “Freedom fries” was absolutely correct.
So, as you enjoy your freedom fries ... compare the venom aimed at France ... coming from the country that France helped create ... to the following passage"
“Nothing better puts in its true light the dominant characteristic of the French sentiment throughout the war than what happened on this solemn occasion (the surrender of the British), and more shows how, with their new-born enthusiasm for philanthropy and liberty, the French were pro-Americans much more than anti-English. No trace of a triumphant attitude toward a vanquished enemy appeared in anything they did or said. Even in the surrendering, the fact remained apparent that this was not a war of hatred. (…) Cornwallis realized quite well that the French had fought for a cause dear to their hearts more than from any desire to humble him or his nation. He publicly rendered full justice to the enemy, acknowledging that the fairest treatment had been awarded him by them. In the final report in which he gives his own account of the catastrophe,’ and which he caused to be printed when he reached England, he said: “The kindness and attention that has been shown us by the French officers … their delicate sensibility of our situation, their generous and pressing offers of money, both public and private, to any amount, has really gone beyond what I can possibly describe …”
http://www.bartleby.com/238/107.html
Some guy (Neil Basso) from the USA then wrote:
"Yes while most of this may be true...And since this is a "well look what the french did for you" This cannot be used as a summery of the Revolution. In my opinion I think the French motives were more at getting to the brits than helping Americans.
We, at least I do, know that the French helped us, and I am grateful...I still don't see how this relates to now, even if the French did not want to help us in Iraq, that is fine, it is their perogative.
The war has not played out to be 100% convincing, maybe time will tell...Afghanistan on the other hand, thats was a no brainer."
I responded:
"Neil, you wrote:
“In my opinion I think the French motives were more at getting to the brits than helping Americans.”
I realise that this is how it has often been presented … for whatever reason … but that is clearly a total reversal of how the people involved felt. And this is exactly why in my previous post, I though it important to bring these:
About General Lord Cornwallis, commander of the British forces:
“Cornwallis realized quite well that the French had fought for a cause dear to their hearts more than from any desire to humble him or his nation. He publicly rendered full justice to the enemy, acknowledging that the fairest treatment had been awarded him by them.”
And this part … the general’s own words:
“The kindness and attention that has been shown us by the French officers … their delicate sensibility of our situation, their generous and pressing offers of money, both public and private, to any amount, has really gone beyond what I can possibly describe …”
And, now, this part:
“Rochambeau, learning that he (Cornwallis) was without money, lent him all he wanted. He invited him to dine with him and his officers on the 2d of November. ‘Lord Cornwallis,’ writes (Baron von) Closen, ‘especially distinguished himself by his reflective turn of mind, his noble and gentle manners. He spoke freely of his campaigns in the Carolinas, and, though he had won several victories, he acknowledged, nevertheless, that they were the cause of the present misfortunes. All, with the exception of Tarleton, spoke French, O’Hara in particular to perfection, but he seemed to us something of a brag.’ A friendly correspondence began between the English general and some of the French officers, Viscount de Noailles, the one who had walked all the way, lending him, the week after the capitulation, his copy of the beforementioned famous work of Count de Guibert on Tactics, which was at that time the talk of Europe, and of which Napoleon said later that ‘it was such as to form great men’ …”
To me the above indicates that the promoted impression that “the French motives were more at getting to the brits than helping Americans” is anything but correct. To me, none of what happened seems especially vindictive toward the British. It, instead, shows an uncommon kinship in the French stance towards the Britons: “No trace of a triumphant attitude toward a vanquished enemy appeared in anything they did or said. Even in the surrendering, the fact remained apparent that this was not a war of hatred.”
In any case, Neil, you also wrote:
“I still don't see how this relates to now, even if the French did not want to help us in Iraq, that is fine, it is their prerogative.”
This does relate … but not in a “Remember how the United States of America were created … how dare you disagree with France!” kind of way. This is, instead, simply to respond to the type of thing that the neo-cons did by saying “Just remember what the US did for France in WW2 …how dares France not go along with Bush!”
As they were preparing the public for the armed invasion and occupation of a semi-destroyed country by a very powerful one, neo-cons had some quick patching up to do about real, valid and serious questions coming from the government of France (among other places). They thus chose the true-and-tried method of … “character assassination”, launching an unprecedented campaign against France … calling for boycotts, renaming food (!), distorting historical facts (trying, even, to turn history completely on its head) … and generally looking for any way to discredit that source of objections.
And many people in the US started helping these guys by trying to come up with any anti-French stuff possible. On this very forum, whatshisname still tries to discredit France. He is using that an Iraqi rebel strike was witnessed by journalists, who happened to be French, and somehow concludes that … “With friends like the French who needs enemies?” Is it just me or is this truly ... as idiotic as it can get!
And all of that simply because, in France, Bush’s claims about Iraqi WMDs were understood to be bullshit well before it became obvious everywhere else. At the time, Bush’s spin-doctors had to somehow explain why in France they would not believe their claims … that the United Nations inspections were not working …that Iraq was actually teeming with WMDs … that the clear danger that those weapons presented required an armed invasion without actual provocation! (This was before the rest of the world figured out that these guys were simply lying).
Neo-cons even tried to cultivate the impression these objections arose because France was devoid of any martial courage. There is something to reproach in French history, but it is the tendency to try and resolve differences through war ... not the opposite! Thankfully, even a basic knowledge of history could show that the neo-con spin was about as opposite to the truth as one can get. This sobering realisation then turned right back on them and they lost even more credibility.
They were, after all, not talking about a country fairly safe on some island somewhere … but about a country standing right in the middle of probably the most violent place on earth (Europe where, historically, we have this nasty habit of fighting each other all the time) … smack in the middle of all the action … fighting war after war against and enemy after enemy … since before the Franks were called Franks (frankly!) … to become one of the largest countries in Europe … This was the country not just of Rochambeau … but of the "Warrior Knights", of William the Conqueror, of Napoleon and of scenes which have become legendary in military history:
"Messieurs les Anglais, tirez les premiers!" (Gentlemen Englishmen, shoot first!) That phrase of the Battle of Fontenoy (11th May 1745) bespeaks the chivalry with which foemen worthy of each other's steel treated one another … And though this “geste” was expensive (nineteen officers and many men of the French Guards are said to have fallen at that first discharge, Fontenoy was nonetheless a French victory against combined forces of British, Dutch and Germans.
Anyway, a typical anti-French assault seemed to be based on WW2. In pre-war France, though German power was recognised, Hitler and his generals’ aptitude was not. Major mistake! And the French are the first to recognise that mistake … for France paid dearly for it. But it was, thus, as easy as it was disgraceful for Bushist neo-cons to spin this for their purposes. You see, in France those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the common struggle against the Nazis are honoured … be they from France, the United States, Russia, England or elsewhere. And one could not respond in kind to neo-con insults for this would mean disrespecting those brave men.
Thankfully, some of the Americans who actually participated in WW2 … were bothered by what was being said about France and rose to defend it: Men like John Warner, of the 90th Infantry division (of the June 1944 D-Day invasion of Normandy) who wrote:
“It bothers me today when I hear people say the French are cowards. I know firsthand they are not":
"… We equipped a few French outfits, one was the French 2nd Armoured Division. The Division spearheaded for us in a number of battles. That means they took the brunt of the punishment from the Germans. I'll tell you this -- they were soldiers ... They were men and they fought like men ...
The average French soldier didn't like to take orders too well. They’d do their job and do it well, as long as no one tried to push them. But they liked to party. More than once, they liberate a village, and we'd roll in several hours later and find them drinking wine and dancing with the women, celebrating their victory. They'd just get drunk and didn't care. But the next day, they’d be ready to fight.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_127695.html
So much damage was done by Bush and his attempts to bullshit his way through this Iraq thing, that thought the French cannot quite lose esteem for the US ... one can imagine that Bush will forever be referred to in French history books as that country's "la president a-hole". :-)
Finally, Neil, you wrote:
“The (Iraq) war has not played out to be 100% convincing, maybe time will tell.”
Here I am at a lost for words! :-) This recognition, as reticent as it may be, is basically what I have been looking for in all my lengthy arguments. And the reason I don’t know what to say is that I had made up my mind that you, Neil, of all people, were the among the most extreme fanatics of this invasion.
It just goes to show you … :-)
Anyway, as you say Neil: “Time will tell!”
Time did tell!
On the subject of whether attacking Iraq was justified, some person living the USA had writen:
"With friends like the French, who needs enemies?"
A Italian man (Fabrizio Lanata) responded:
"yes, they should have thought twice before making you a gift of your independence from the uk..."
Some woman( Lorian Weston) from the USA then wrote:
"A gift??"
I responded:
"I think that what Fabrizio is referring to ... is this:
The campaign and the victory [Yorktown] that led to the creation of a country called the United States of America was accomplished by the following:
Troops outside New York City under George Washington … and … an army in Virginia under the French General Marquis de Lafayette … French forces in Rhode Island under the French General Comte de Rochambeau … a French fleet at Newport under the French Comte de Barras … and a French fleet in the West Indies under the French Comte de Grasse.
George Woodbridge summed up that victory thus:
" The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory. " And, by the way, the British actually surrendered to the French. But Rochambeau … refused the sword presented to him and directed that it be given to General Washington.
Freedom means liberty and your statue of liberty is also French ... you could rename it the Statue of France ... no meaning would be lost ... for in the US ... freedom and France must necessarily mean the same thing. Calling "French fries" ... “Freedom fries” was absolutely correct.
So, as you enjoy your freedom fries ... compare the venom aimed at France ... coming from the country that France helped create ... to the following passage"
“Nothing better puts in its true light the dominant characteristic of the French sentiment throughout the war than what happened on this solemn occasion (the surrender of the British), and more shows how, with their new-born enthusiasm for philanthropy and liberty, the French were pro-Americans much more than anti-English. No trace of a triumphant attitude toward a vanquished enemy appeared in anything they did or said. Even in the surrendering, the fact remained apparent that this was not a war of hatred. (…) Cornwallis realized quite well that the French had fought for a cause dear to their hearts more than from any desire to humble him or his nation. He publicly rendered full justice to the enemy, acknowledging that the fairest treatment had been awarded him by them. In the final report in which he gives his own account of the catastrophe,’ and which he caused to be printed when he reached England, he said: “The kindness and attention that has been shown us by the French officers … their delicate sensibility of our situation, their generous and pressing offers of money, both public and private, to any amount, has really gone beyond what I can possibly describe …”
http://www.bartleby.com/238/107.html
Some guy (Neil Basso) from the USA then wrote:
"Yes while most of this may be true...And since this is a "well look what the french did for you" This cannot be used as a summery of the Revolution. In my opinion I think the French motives were more at getting to the brits than helping Americans.
We, at least I do, know that the French helped us, and I am grateful...I still don't see how this relates to now, even if the French did not want to help us in Iraq, that is fine, it is their perogative.
The war has not played out to be 100% convincing, maybe time will tell...Afghanistan on the other hand, thats was a no brainer."
I responded:
"Neil, you wrote:
“In my opinion I think the French motives were more at getting to the brits than helping Americans.”
I realise that this is how it has often been presented … for whatever reason … but that is clearly a total reversal of how the people involved felt. And this is exactly why in my previous post, I though it important to bring these:
About General Lord Cornwallis, commander of the British forces:
“Cornwallis realized quite well that the French had fought for a cause dear to their hearts more than from any desire to humble him or his nation. He publicly rendered full justice to the enemy, acknowledging that the fairest treatment had been awarded him by them.”
And this part … the general’s own words:
“The kindness and attention that has been shown us by the French officers … their delicate sensibility of our situation, their generous and pressing offers of money, both public and private, to any amount, has really gone beyond what I can possibly describe …”
And, now, this part:
“Rochambeau, learning that he (Cornwallis) was without money, lent him all he wanted. He invited him to dine with him and his officers on the 2d of November. ‘Lord Cornwallis,’ writes (Baron von) Closen, ‘especially distinguished himself by his reflective turn of mind, his noble and gentle manners. He spoke freely of his campaigns in the Carolinas, and, though he had won several victories, he acknowledged, nevertheless, that they were the cause of the present misfortunes. All, with the exception of Tarleton, spoke French, O’Hara in particular to perfection, but he seemed to us something of a brag.’ A friendly correspondence began between the English general and some of the French officers, Viscount de Noailles, the one who had walked all the way, lending him, the week after the capitulation, his copy of the beforementioned famous work of Count de Guibert on Tactics, which was at that time the talk of Europe, and of which Napoleon said later that ‘it was such as to form great men’ …”
To me the above indicates that the promoted impression that “the French motives were more at getting to the brits than helping Americans” is anything but correct. To me, none of what happened seems especially vindictive toward the British. It, instead, shows an uncommon kinship in the French stance towards the Britons: “No trace of a triumphant attitude toward a vanquished enemy appeared in anything they did or said. Even in the surrendering, the fact remained apparent that this was not a war of hatred.”
In any case, Neil, you also wrote:
“I still don't see how this relates to now, even if the French did not want to help us in Iraq, that is fine, it is their prerogative.”
This does relate … but not in a “Remember how the United States of America were created … how dare you disagree with France!” kind of way. This is, instead, simply to respond to the type of thing that the neo-cons did by saying “Just remember what the US did for France in WW2 …how dares France not go along with Bush!”
As they were preparing the public for the armed invasion and occupation of a semi-destroyed country by a very powerful one, neo-cons had some quick patching up to do about real, valid and serious questions coming from the government of France (among other places). They thus chose the true-and-tried method of … “character assassination”, launching an unprecedented campaign against France … calling for boycotts, renaming food (!), distorting historical facts (trying, even, to turn history completely on its head) … and generally looking for any way to discredit that source of objections.
And many people in the US started helping these guys by trying to come up with any anti-French stuff possible. On this very forum, whatshisname still tries to discredit France. He is using that an Iraqi rebel strike was witnessed by journalists, who happened to be French, and somehow concludes that … “With friends like the French who needs enemies?” Is it just me or is this truly ... as idiotic as it can get!
And all of that simply because, in France, Bush’s claims about Iraqi WMDs were understood to be bullshit well before it became obvious everywhere else. At the time, Bush’s spin-doctors had to somehow explain why in France they would not believe their claims … that the United Nations inspections were not working …that Iraq was actually teeming with WMDs … that the clear danger that those weapons presented required an armed invasion without actual provocation! (This was before the rest of the world figured out that these guys were simply lying).
Neo-cons even tried to cultivate the impression these objections arose because France was devoid of any martial courage. There is something to reproach in French history, but it is the tendency to try and resolve differences through war ... not the opposite! Thankfully, even a basic knowledge of history could show that the neo-con spin was about as opposite to the truth as one can get. This sobering realisation then turned right back on them and they lost even more credibility.
They were, after all, not talking about a country fairly safe on some island somewhere … but about a country standing right in the middle of probably the most violent place on earth (Europe where, historically, we have this nasty habit of fighting each other all the time) … smack in the middle of all the action … fighting war after war against and enemy after enemy … since before the Franks were called Franks (frankly!) … to become one of the largest countries in Europe … This was the country not just of Rochambeau … but of the "Warrior Knights", of William the Conqueror, of Napoleon and of scenes which have become legendary in military history:
"Messieurs les Anglais, tirez les premiers!" (Gentlemen Englishmen, shoot first!) That phrase of the Battle of Fontenoy (11th May 1745) bespeaks the chivalry with which foemen worthy of each other's steel treated one another … And though this “geste” was expensive (nineteen officers and many men of the French Guards are said to have fallen at that first discharge, Fontenoy was nonetheless a French victory against combined forces of British, Dutch and Germans.
Anyway, a typical anti-French assault seemed to be based on WW2. In pre-war France, though German power was recognised, Hitler and his generals’ aptitude was not. Major mistake! And the French are the first to recognise that mistake … for France paid dearly for it. But it was, thus, as easy as it was disgraceful for Bushist neo-cons to spin this for their purposes. You see, in France those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the common struggle against the Nazis are honoured … be they from France, the United States, Russia, England or elsewhere. And one could not respond in kind to neo-con insults for this would mean disrespecting those brave men.
Thankfully, some of the Americans who actually participated in WW2 … were bothered by what was being said about France and rose to defend it: Men like John Warner, of the 90th Infantry division (of the June 1944 D-Day invasion of Normandy) who wrote:
“It bothers me today when I hear people say the French are cowards. I know firsthand they are not":
"… We equipped a few French outfits, one was the French 2nd Armoured Division. The Division spearheaded for us in a number of battles. That means they took the brunt of the punishment from the Germans. I'll tell you this -- they were soldiers ... They were men and they fought like men ...
The average French soldier didn't like to take orders too well. They’d do their job and do it well, as long as no one tried to push them. But they liked to party. More than once, they liberate a village, and we'd roll in several hours later and find them drinking wine and dancing with the women, celebrating their victory. They'd just get drunk and didn't care. But the next day, they’d be ready to fight.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_127695.html
So much damage was done by Bush and his attempts to bullshit his way through this Iraq thing, that thought the French cannot quite lose esteem for the US ... one can imagine that Bush will forever be referred to in French history books as that country's "la president a-hole". :-)
Finally, Neil, you wrote:
“The (Iraq) war has not played out to be 100% convincing, maybe time will tell.”
Here I am at a lost for words! :-) This recognition, as reticent as it may be, is basically what I have been looking for in all my lengthy arguments. And the reason I don’t know what to say is that I had made up my mind that you, Neil, of all people, were the among the most extreme fanatics of this invasion.
It just goes to show you … :-)
Anyway, as you say Neil: “Time will tell!”
Time did tell!
