¡No Pasaran! clued us to this gem by M. Dominique Dhombres in his 06.25.04 Le Monde column:

Europe could finally come into existence if it agreed to have enemies. It would cease to be boring and colorless if it were to oppose someone.

M. Dhombres is not talking about Islamism nor rogue nuclear states as Europe's candidate enemies. What M. Dhombres has in mind is all of Europe joining France in its war of snits, snubs, and scathing down-the-nose insults against America. For Le Monde, as for Jack and his minions at the Quai d'Orsay, as for much of France, there is only one great bug-a-boo, scil., America. If only Europe would provide France sufficient heft, then France could settle America's hash.

But to have heft requires friends, not doormats. (Hat tip: E-nough!):

Britain has concluded that its three-nation alliance with France and Germany is in effect over after a series of rows between Tony Blair and the French President, Jacques Chirac.

The Prime Minister's change of tack emerged as he accused France and Germany of watering down moves to ensure stability in Iraq and Afghanistan and warned that this week's Nato summit had not faced up to the threat of global terrorism.

The end of trilateralism will come as a relief to many smaller European nations, which feared the three most powerful countries in the EU would set up a directoire.

Jack is fearless when it comes to alienating any who miss their opportunities to shut up. When EU candidates Bulgaria and Romania signed the Vilnius Group letter supporting the American-led liberation of Iraq, Jack was all over that: "If they wanted to lessen their chances of joining Europe, then they could not have found a better way."

But France can also be accommodating. For instance, the apparent warning below is for a threat that does not yet materially exist, i.e., Iran going nuclear:

France could use its nuclear capability to defend its neighbours, French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said in an interview Monday, while also urging European Union states to increase military spending.

She said ethnic conflict and terrorism were making the world increasingly more unstable...that rogue states "could one day point their missiles toward France and its neighbours. We could say to those countries: 'Watch out, if you try to carry out your threats we will destroy you before you know what's hit you.'"

That's pretty fancy talk when France insists America act like the Duke of Sung. Imagine for a moment were Donald Rumsfeld to talk so loosely about pre-emptively -- as Mdm. Alliot-Marie here suggests -- flinging around a few nukes, imagine the placid French reaction.

But this is no warning. What France is up to here is signaling that she has decided Europe can live with a nuclear Iran -- taking some of the polish off Israel, America's staunch ally -- oh, but don't point those missles at anything near France.

Mdm. Alliot-Marie, perhaps the dimmest bulb in the dark Chirac marquee, is pretty sure France would bail out Germany and she's pretty sure that France has a good army, though not quite how good:

"If Germany asked us for help, it is probable that European solidarity would come into play," she told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper, and added: "For us, nuclear weapons are the ultimate protection against a threat from abroad."

She said that France has a mobile, flexible and highly-motivated military and that it was the second or third best in the world.

[All emphases added.]

Bear in mind up to the outbreak of World War II, the French army was assessed as the best in the world. And Poland was assured France would honor her treaty obligations.

Poland was assured France would honor her treaty obligations.

Didn't we?

Right, who at Pave cares if France lost 11000 in 1939 alone... The fact is that France in 39 had very low birth rate, a consequence of 1.5 million casualties of WW1, their strategy was a defensive one which proved to be innefective against a much better prepared and modern German army.

Europe could finally come into existence if it agreed to have enemies. It would cease to be boring and colorless if it were to oppose someone.

That's no gem. Every sociology 101 book will tell you that the construction of identity is also made in opposition to the Other, whoever that is. "Enemies" is a bit strong a word, but the idea is there. I found this behaviour particularly strong in English Canada, where people tend to define themselves as "not Americans". There was a fun commercial about it on TV ("the rant").

I meant 110 000 casualities in 1939, not 11000...

I found this behaviour particularly strong in English Canada, where people tend to define themselves as "not Americans".

Even some Americans prefer to be "not really American" these days...

Use utmost discretion in areas of heavy anti-Americanism.
Dress like a local when in "hot spot" areas. Many travelers in areas of heavy anti-Americanism do not reveal that they are Americans and some even use Canadian cover documents and also Canadian flag decals on their bags. Refrain from any political discussions. Never be put in a situation where you may become a hostage or terrorist's target.

Dude, the four last posts come only from both of us over the last two days. I have two possible explanations:

1. Jet lag is playing for us.
2. We spend to much time on this blog :)

As a Polish-American, I can safely say HELL NO you PUSSIES did not honor your treaty obligations!

Your country promised to attack Germany if Poland was attacked.

Your little sitzkrieg really helped out an ally.

Had you attacked Germany with the then mightest army, WWII might never have been.

Good job ass wipes.

Hope you get fucked over like you did Poland and good riddence to you and your flea ridden shit pile of a country.

Had you attacked Germany with the then mightest army, WWII might never have been.

Good deduction Sherlock. Especially 50 years after, from an ocean away and sitting behind your PC.

Good job ass wipes.
Hope you get fucked over like you did Poland and good riddence to you and your flea ridden shit pile of a country.

As a Polish-American

I know lots of Poles (from Poland), you my friend are not Polish.

I heard you missed me so I'm back. Sorry for the absence. I was mega busy cleaning my room ; )
No really my computer took a dump on me. So lets quit refighting "the big one" already. I think were giving Germany a complex.
How about an EU resolution against Iran? You don't really hope for a nuclear war between Israel and Iran do you? (I would say an UN resolution but lets face it an EU resolution would be more to the point, without getting bogged up involving all the mullocracies and dictatorships.)

I'm back too!
Finished working those da** double shifts and can really start to play blasting you frogs!

I’ll start out slowwww…

So, with all you big, strong, powerful countries over there across the pond and we get....
GREECE and PORTUGAL??? So, guys, happy Greece won? Always nice to loose to the victor, I guess. And my fellow American posters, how the heck did you let the French get by with nobody razzing them about the loss to GREECE? Loved the comment of their supporters: “Europe is too small for Greece”.

Are we all ready for Lance Armstrong to make it SIX???? Go Lance!

Greece deserves the title, they blocked Portugal the same way they did it to France. They don't have the same grueling schedule than most French players have (most of them play in the UK, Italy and Germany), they were more fresh, but good for them. But the French win over England was very, very sweet... and I hope Armstrong makes it to six.

In all fairness Portugal probably deserved the cup a bit more, since they played a much nicer football and not the italo-german catenaccio crap the Greek served us. BUT I couldn't cope with the idea of my portuguese neighbours honking their horns until 2am as they did after their England win - I am thus quite happy with this year's results.

The only fun part of the final was when this Spanish fan ran through the field. As a friend of mine remarked, "had he been English, this guy would have also been naked".

" scathing down-the-nose insults against America"

"Scathing???" I know that the dictionary might agree with your usage, but doesn't scathing have a connotation of effectivness? Best I could support is wanna-be scathing.

Are you serious? You back this pronouncement by Chirac which says in effect, It's all good you terrorising the rest of the world, but if something gets blown up in Paris, France is going to nuke the bejesus out of you?

Might I suggest a less costly (in the blood of both your citizens and theirs) course of action?
An unequivacle backing of our mission in Iraq plus a stern warning to the ruling party of Iran that their nuclear ambitions will not be tolerated, would end this situation. Iran is currently a bastardized form of democracy anyhow. With a little leverage the Mullahs will give up due to internal pressure. They are on the ropes already.

It seems like it is worth a try. Hell of a bunch better then waiting to see if the terrorists take Chirac's nuke threat seriously. Thats one bluff you really don't want to have called. At least I hope you don't!

Gee, we're either too wimpy or too tough for you!

Alliot-Marie is #2 on my list of incompetent government members. #1 got fired a few weeks ago.
I wouldn't pay too much attention too what she says if I were you.

"Catenaccio"

Didn't know the term, Dr. Evil, thanks for the info. Good observation regarding the Greek team...

Being wimpy leads to the tough part. Your like the man who is so intimidated by the town bully, that instead of confronting him, you would rather sneak over in the night to burn his house down.

Perhaps the bully will be killed in the fire. In fact you hope so because your afraid of him. Your fear kept you from ever telling him to stop tossing beer cans on your lawn.
This is not justice. This does not solve your problem.
If AL Quaida hits some French landmark with a truck bomb, who are you going to hit with those nukes? Iran? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Syria?
Not good policy.
Instead join us in liberalising the Middle East and you will be hailed as a righteous nation. Totalfina elf will get the oil contracts it covets, and it will be remembered as one of the proudest chapters in French history.

M. Zoomerx, Dr. Evil, Gentlemen,

Always glad to see roiling in the threads.

Regarding France honoring her treaty obligations to Poland in 1939, the answer is an emphatic "No" by Polish lights (viz., Mr. Wasielewski above) and anyone mildly acquainted with the history of the time. Alistair Horne writes in To Lose A Battle:

"In May 1939 [French Chief of the Defence Staff, General Maurice] Gamelin had given an understanding to the Polish High Command that immediately on the outbreak of war the French Army would assume the offensive against Germany and that it would throw the full weight of 'the majority of its forces' at latest by the fifteenth day of mobilisation."

The one and only offensive undertaken by the Third Republic's forces was the feeble Saar Offensive, in which no more than nine of 67 French divisions participated, advancing a maximum of five miles on a sixteen-mile front. They had all melted back into France by October 4th, 1939, less than a glorious month tepidly fighting for Poland.

M. Zoomerx, what thin air are you pulling the fantastic number of 110,000 French casualties in 1939? How could such a thing happen? Other than the Saar Offensive, where casualties were light, what occasion had the French to lose so many men during la Drôle de Guerre? Was the French army bivouacked on the island of Atlantis? At the beginning of 1940, Edouard Daladier was delighted to report:

"In 1914, we suffered 100,000 killed during the first four months. This time we have only lost 2,000."

Dr. Evil, we are happy to learn you're a student of Sociology 101, but before lecturing Pave, best do your whole lesson: The formulation of identity is as much about what is assimilated as what is opposed. Perhaps they cover that in Sociology 102 at your school.

And that, of course, is the point of the post. France protests that she is a steadfast American ally, but in all things she jockeys to oppose America. That strong and prevalent opinion in France believes Europe can only be realized by assuming France's American animus well, this is not an ally. France openly prefers a position similar to China's vis-a-vis America, scil., a "strategic competitor". Actually France has a calculated preference for China. It's a sure bet Jack will never paint the Eiffel Tower red, white, and blue for a GWB state visit.

(But look, I see we are in agreement about your Mdm. Alliot-Marie. However, I do tend to pay attention when an official with a nuclear arsenal in her portfolio spouts off, especially if she is a twit.)

De-Prog, "scathing" has a connotation of harm. It is misguided to believe French insults do no harm -- most markedly to herself, as France is the biggest loser in Jack's grand plan of alienation. As long as the West is divided the Islamists will romp.

PT, I commend your cajoling our French correspondents, but while Jack presides in the Salon Murat France remains a thing apart. Regardless of France's fortunes, Chirac's amour-propre will never bend to American ascendence. It's either Jack on top or the world in ruin. Nothing in between.

Regards all,
DGB

Then I would say 'reckless, invidious, and self-defeating' criticism. I simply don't give Jack's power of insult that much credit.

De-Prog,

As you say that is what you would say. For the point I am making scathing is the word.

Now, what are your thoughts on France rattling her nuclear quiver?

DGB

"We're allowed to break test ban treaties, and you're not."

Is there anything else to say?

I propose that we follow the preemptive strategy put forth by the U.S. government and nuke france!!!!

Reasoning:

france is a rouge state.

france has nuclear weapons.

france will soon be an islamofacist country.

ergo, for our safety we should remove the threat before the islamofasist take over and someone with balls has their hands on the button.

I suppose that's one way to get France paved, but not preferred. Fallout doesn't respect borders, as Chernobyl reminds us. It might not be a bad idea to pencil up plans for the next liberation, though.

And was "rougue state" intentionally misspelled? I hope so, that works on so many levels...

President Chirac is just an elected official. It has been months since one of our French visitors even claimed to be in agreement with one of his policies. Time is ticking for his term, then, if I understand the situation correctly, he will be off to Devil's Island (or where ever Frenchmen send their convicts now days.)

The next President of France might be a more reasonable fellow.

DGB,

Your arrogant cheap shots are sometimes amusing, but mostly annoying.

1. No matter what the strategy used was (and talking 50 years later from your messy bedroom sure is a sound one), France and the UK did declare war on Nazi Germany. Just as Nazi Germany did declare war on the US of A (but thanks again for joining the party anyway).

2. I am glad to see you have studied neither Sociology nor English 101. When I said also, it meant that confronting the Other is one way (amongst others) of building identity. Its opposite would probably be identification. Assimilation, on the other, hand is a loss of identity (to gain a new one).

Now go clean up your room. And no more coffee for you, you get way to excited.

The next President of France might be a more reasonable fellow
Yeah right. Like Hell will freeze over and Bush II will be a compassionate conservative.

How about your next president being a reasonable fellow?

Stay relevant to the thread????
Boy, I'm still waiting to see a thread where the last post has anything to do with the one that started it!
Posted by: Steph [AKA Dr.Evil Steph, AKA Dr.Evil] on March 31, 2004 05:43 AM

Well I'm still looking forward to see a thread here that sticks to the original topic for more than 3 or 4 posts in a row.
Posted by: Dr.Evil on May 27, 2004 03:56 AM

Dr. Evil,

Your bizarre out-of-the-blue interest in my bedroom, your presumptuous speculation on its tidiness, and your more bizarre parental bossing speaks to exactly what in this post? No doubt, someone signing himself Dr. Evil thinks himself very cute.

1. Let's see, you ask if France met her extant treaty obligations to Poland following Germany's 1939 invasion; I answer "No", provide the details on the deficient offense made in contrast to the all-out offense promised; you respond that France did declare war on Germany. And that is the full extent of your grasp of the history and as much argument as you have.

There were two operative treaties between France and Poland. The Franco-Polish Treaty of 1921, the relevant article No.3 states:

"If, notwithstanding the sincerely peaceful views and intentions of the two contracting States, either or both of them should be attacked without giving provocation, the two Governments shall take concerted measures for the defence of their territory and the protection of their legitimate interests within the limits specified in the preamble. "

Treaty of Locarno, 1925, the relevant article No.1 states:

In the event of Poland or France suffering from a failure to observe undertakings arrived at this day between them and Germany, with a view to the maintenance of general peace, France and, reciprocally, Poland, acting in application of Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, undertake to lend each other immediate aid and assistance, if such a failure is accompanied by an unprovoked recourse to arms.

In the event of the Council of the League of Nations, when dealing with a question brought before it in accordance with the said undertakings, being unable to succeed in securing the acceptance of its report by all its members other than the representatives of the parties to the dispute, and in the event of Poland or France being attacked without provocation, France, or reciprocally Poland, acting in application of Article 15, paragraph 7, of the Covenant of the League of Nations, will immediately lend aid and assistance.

France publicly and formally confirmed the Franco-Polish alliance on April 13, 1939. France's hollow declaration of war did not satisfy its obligations to "take concerted measures for the defence of their territory and the protection of their legitimate interests" and to "immediately lend aid and assistance". Can't make it any plainer than that.

As for your swipe at America's entry into the war, well, America didn't lose France, the French did. Are you suggesting that France could not save herself without America from the get-go? Well, the French didn't embrace that bright idea till the panzers were bearing down on Reynaud in hopeless Bordeaux. Your pique confounds you. Try stomaching some of your nation's history before denigrating the America that did save France.

2. Every sociology 101 book will tell you that the construction of identity is also made in opposition to the Other, whoever that is.
Posted by Dr. Evil at July 7, 2004 02:58 AM

When I said also, it meant that confronting the Other is one way (amongst others) of building identity. Its opposite would probably be identification. Assimilation, on the other, hand is a loss of identity (to gain a new one).
Posted by Dr. Evil at July 10, 2004 10:40 AM

Can we follow this? The opposite of "Other" is "identification", "assimilation" is the loss of identity.

Identification = psychological orientation of the self in regard to something (as a person or group) with a resulting feeling of close emotional association. Why that sounds like the embrace of "other".

Assimilate = to absorb into the culture or mores of a population or group. Why that sounds very much like the operation of "identification" above.

Dr. Evil, just what Sociology 101 textbook have you culled your half-baked ideas from? If you were a careful reader you would appreciate that I have given the correct generalized formulation, not the muddled jargon you've hobbled together. Perhaps if you spent less time dreaming about my bedroom and more time working your arguments you might manage something interesting.

Regarding my English, well, I'm always ready for improvement, but you're not up to the job.

As for finding my "cheapshots" "mostly annoying", I see that they have a strong coincidence to the factual arguments you chose not to answer. If you are annoyed here, take your complaints elsewhere. Pave forbears without complaint your bumptious posts. Click, click , bye-bye.

DGB

Interesting that this site is still using a half-baked analysis version of history to assess the modern day French military. The modern day French military is mobile, well tested in a variety of peace missions. What happened in 1939 has no relevance on anything with regards to the modern day French military.

Secondly it's strange to here a Polish-American criticizing France, when Poland has a terrible military record, and awful record on race relations and anti-semitism. It was also sickening to hear Polish-Americans boo the US Soccer team in Chicago last week. A lof these people come to our country and then they have the gall to boo the American team. I was at the game and it was stomach churning. I am not going to listen to any Polish-American for high ground on anything related to the US or France.