Monday, July 17, 2006
Echoes of French militarism
Regular readers know that I am a closet Francophile -- yes, I am as annoyed by French obstructionism as anybody, but I admire the shinier other side of that coin: France's willingness to be an actual country, with actual sovereignty, with actual points of view and the gumption to act on them. As silly as it sounds, those traits, which Americans take for granted, distinguish France from virtually every other continental European country west of Russia.
For example, French militarism retains obvious popular appeal, at least in the abstract. The French military parades on Bastille Day to an extent that supposedly war-mongering Americans never would. Can anybody imagine a phalanx of tanks such as this on Pennsylvania Avenue?
Is there any other major democracy that parades its military the way the French do? Does this reflect a residual popularity for military action that might materialize under the right circumstances? Or is France done, and these parades nothing more than nostalgia?
15 Comments:
By 
allen, at
Mon Jul 17, 10:19:00 AM:
I love it! Some bread, some cheese, some wine, followed by a leisurely stroll through a gallery at the Louvre. There can be nothing better on a pleasant summer's day.
For the French, elan is the word.
By 
, at
Mon Jul 17, 11:11:00 AM:
I agree that the willingness to show off military equipment is more a compensation for the reluctance to use it than anything else.
By , at
Mon Jul 17, 02:06:00 PM:
What was that WW II movie, where the German General reviews the German Colonel's troops, and says, "Very pretty Colonel...but can they fight?"
By allen, at
Mon Jul 17, 02:36:00 PM:
By Charlottesvillain, at
Mon Jul 17, 04:43:00 PM:
Of course one reason they may do it is because the images that the world remembers are of German tanks rolling down those wide boulevards, unopposed. I imagine it would take a long time to wipe that kind of thing from the public consiousness.
By El Jefe Maximo, at
Mon Jul 17, 07:40:00 PM:
The last Bastille Day Parade of the Third Republic -- 14 July 1939, the summer before la debacle of 1940 -- was always supposed to have been the best.
I am often impatient with the modern French (Napoleon, DeGaulle, Foch, Joffre, Turenne et al are all no doubt propellering in their graves at the antics of Chirac and Co.) Still, I hate to see the French military denigrated by the ignorant. So they had a bad campaign in 1940...So what ? They didn't have the space to correct their mistakes, as the Russians did, and didn't have another campaign under their belts, as the Germans did. They were also handicapped by all the usual maladies of a modern peaceful democratic state put up against a dictatorship: feckless, penny-pinching politicians; irresponsible journalists; and the desire of voters for it all to go away.
Still, for every Sedan or Dien Bien Phu in French history, there's an Austerlitz or a Jena. The French put up a hell of a fight in the First World War, and their para units in Indochina and Algeria, I'd argue, were among the finest ever fielded by a modern state.
I like the institution of the Bastille Day parade: one of the last reminders of France's glorious military past. I've always wanted to go to a Bastille Day parade. Hope I make it someday.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jul 17, 08:06:00 PM:
"They were also handicapped by all the usual maladies of a modern peaceful democratic state put up against a dictatorship: feckless, penny-pinching politicians; irresponsible journalists; and the desire of voters for it all to go away."
Denigrated by the ignorant? The French 'efforts' in WWII were terrible.
Rampant defeatism or apathy amongst the ranks, out-dated tactics, an ancient general staff, and deluded strategies also contributed, not just 'usual maladies of democracies.' They spent huge amounts of money on the Maginot line (static fortifications?!) because... well, they thought that *next time* the Germans would *surely* come through there, even though they hadn't before; also, they ignored the possibility of an armored assault via the Ardennes because it was "an impenetrable forest." Bad communications, questionable loyalties among officers and politicians, an unstable government... sad.
There's a grand explanation of just how pitiful French resistance was in 1940 (and the so-called Sitzkrieg) in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that draws almost exclusively from primary sources. Disheartening stuff. (if you're French)
For the less ambitious reader, there's a mildly revisionist but informed section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_France.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Mon Jul 17, 08:17:00 PM:
Agreed, Dawnfire. Rise and Fall is essential reading, perhaps more relevant now than in a long while. My philosophy towards diplomacy, war, and national sacrifice were forever changed when I read that book. Unfortunately, it is startlingly apparent that few Americans younger than 70 have read the damn book.
Well you know what they say, "those who don't know history..." yada yada yada.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jul 17, 08:40:00 PM:
The French put their fingers in militarily all over the place..and not always in the most helpful manner.
Their 5,000 or so "peacekeepers" in the Darfur region are essentially running interference for the Janjaweed and causing the AU peacekeeper troops problems.
By Fausta, at
Mon Jul 17, 08:46:00 PM:
The French are big on symbollic gestures. As such, military display's a symbol. It's the illusion of a powerful France ready to defend the tricoleur.
Nothing more.
By , at
Mon Jul 17, 08:57:00 PM:
Kudos to James Taranto for reminding us that something "not proportional" can be either more or less.
Now we understand that based on the history of their countries' responses, Chirac's recent veiled threat to use Nukes if terrorist attacked France that Chirac and Putin were using the word to mean a deficiency vs
an excess.
"Some have criticized Israel for not responding proportionately to the attacks, but we'd counsel patience. After all, the Israelis aren't done yet."........James Taranto
URL for Best of the Web:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008668
Larwyn
By Habu, at
Mon Jul 17, 10:03:00 PM:
For all they might have been, what they are now are international offal trying to remain relevant through an underserved chair on the UN Security Council and their force de frappe.
Not too terribly long ago they were attempting to prop up Saddam so their treacherous dealings in oil for food and war material would not be uncovered. We're still learning daily through translation of captured documents of their duplicitious deportment.
France..the cheese eating surrender monkeys.
By El Jefe Maximo, at
Tue Jul 18, 08:24:00 AM:
"Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is indeed very good, despite Mr. Shirer's occasional outbursts of incredulity over the fact that cynical Europeans wern't behaving like straight-shooting idealists from Missouri. I found his outrage that there might be Germans who actually wanted to reverse the verdict of the First World War rather quaint.
Still, Mr. Shirer's coverage of the Holocaust and the background of both Hitler and the Nazi Party is among the best short general treatments.
For France, specifically, read Mr. Shirer's "The Collapse of the Third Republic" -- which might even be better than Third Reich. His discussion of the Battle of France, and the formation of the Vichy state is particularly good.
"Berlin Diary" and "End of a Berlin Diary" are defintely worth a look too.
On the French Army for the 1940 campaign, read Robert A. Doughty's "The Breaking Point: Sedan and the Fall of France, 1940." The most readable overall history of that campaign is still Alistair Horne's "To Lose a Battle: France, 1940." 92,000 French soldiers fell in that brief campaign.
By , at
Wed Jul 19, 01:21:00 AM:
Aux armes, citoyens,
Formez vos bataillons,
Marchons, marchons !
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons !
By , at
Wed Jul 19, 06:24:00 PM:
Lovely parade. But we Brits prefer to actually use our military to back up our beliefs rather than just ensure they look polished and pretty...
