From the comments:
NOTA said...
The anti-Russia PR campaign in the prestige media reminds me a great deal of the anti-France campaign around and right after the Iraq invasion. Remember cheese eating surrender monkeys, freedom fries, and "rifle for sale, never fired, only dropped once?"
The pattern here appears to be that countries that resist our foreign policy adventures then become a kind of acceptable target in various bits of our media. I'm sure this isn't overtly coordinated anywhere, but media people are presumably pretty good at inferring which way the wind is blowing....
This represents a major change in my lifetime. From, say, the Tet Offensive of 1968 to Iran-Contra sputtering out in the summer of 1987, oppositionalism to American foreign policy was always somewhere between the avant-garde and the default position for the American media. For example, constantly in the early 1980s, Time would have Strobe Talbott thunder about how Reagan was going to blow up the world if he didn't start being nicer to the Soviets.
This is not to say that oppositionalism was uniform or monolithic. (For example, Henry Kissinger was highly glamorized, but partly that was, as Kissinger writes in his memoirs, a media calculation that making Kissinger look better made it easier to overthrow the hated Nixon because the public could be reassured it would still have Dr. K's deft hand on the foreign affairs tiller to provide continuity.)
But having been 9 years old in 1968 and 28 in 1987, it's been pretty surprising for me that the American media has pretty much gone back to the way it was in 1942-1967 when the press looked to the government for what line to take on foreign policy. But that's probably the natural state of affairs and what needs explanation is the skeptical, oppositional perspective that I grew up assuming was the automatic order of things.
Instead, the natural state of affairs is that people who are good with words write the kind of things that people with large budgets want them to write.
Instead, the natural state of affairs is that people who are good with words write the kind of things that people with large budgets want them to write.
Posts
54 comments:
But Steve, the Soviets had all those republics filled with diverse people.
However, the Russians are just racist white people.
So post WWII the press was on the government's side. Starting with Vietnam, the press was against the government. Then in the Clinton years, there was Kosovo and Serbia which were both anti-ethnic cleansing wars (purportedly), which was a cause that was safe to support. And that's mostly where we've been since.
>>Pointed, Steve Sailer wrote:
""Instead, the natural state of affairs is that people who are good with words write the kind of things that people with large budgets want them to write.""
Steve, this isn't a subliminal "I'm looking at YOU, Malcolm." comment, right?
Ok. Maybe read to much into it. And after all, Blink and Outliers are soooo 2000's.
But having been 9 years old in 1968 and 28 in 1987, it's been pretty surprising for me that the American media has pretty much gone back to the way it was in 1942-1967 when the press looked to the government for what line to take on foreign policy. But that's probably the natural state of affairs and what needs explanation is the skeptical, oppositional perspective that I grew up assuming was the automatic order of things.
It probably is a natural state of affairs when the ruling elite both run the government and the media. From 1942 to 1967, this happened. But from 1968 to 1987, there was a transition where the new elite who ran the media were in the process of displacing the old elite who ran the government. Post 1987, we've returned to a natural state.
Well, for a while the media was really against the second Iraq War. I think the media oppositionism in that case started some way into the war though. It would have done more good in the run-up to it.
What it sounds like in a roundabout way, is what the press did in 2000 around the time of the GOP Convention with the word "Gravitas". They repeated it and talking pointed it to an early grave.
Seriously, how often has the word Gravitas been used by the serious press since then?
It had that whole condescending about it as in:
"we know what's best for you out in hinterlandville, and since we know that we know that we know what you ought to think about such things, here's the new word (that many of us hardly knew even existed) that you should think about. Ready? The new word for you to learn is 'gravitas'. Repeat after us, boys and girls."
Hope that that's not what's coming back into political style, that whole condescending tone of the thinking press, but perhaps its never really left us.
Slightly off topic but does anyone else thnk Bob Costas was poisoned by the KGB?
"cheese eating surrender monkeys"
Lot of misconceptions about France. In WW1 France sustained military deaths of 1.4 million with a population of perhaps 42 million. This was twice the number for the United Kingdom, which had about the same size population. This is the equivalent of 10.4 million dead Americans today. Even in WW2 French losses were more considerable then is generally realized. France also lost about 400,000 civilian dead, including 60,000 from allied bombing. The Free French and the French underground fought hard throughout the war. The general collapse of France in 1940 was at least partly due to France not having recovered mentally from the Great War. The allies also did little to help. The pointless sinking of the French fleet by the British turned many French people against Great Britain. The allies cold-shouldered DeGaulle throughout the war and imposed AmGovt upon liberated France. Had they accepted DeGaulle and his forces as equals and included him in the chain of command things might have been different. What if one of the five beaches at D-Day had been given to the F.F. forces to attack? This would have galvanized France.
"Slightly off topic but does anyone else thnk Bob Costas was poisoned by the KGB?"
I've read all manner of distasteful comments speculating on how Bobby caught the pink eye. My personal opinion, is that Russia is just barely a first world country, and Bob probably made the mistake of showering in his slapshod, Putin-crony-built hotel with his eyes open.
Hey Yankee, we tried that equality stuff, it burns.
The war to create an Islamic bridgehead in central Europe. Thanks Bill! Thanks Albright! Thanks Clark!
They fought pretty hard. But they may also have had an inkling of the postwar arab-Africanization that liberal democracy would bring. FF forces were often Norman officers leading Senegalese, Moroccan and Algerian colonial infantry. These forces were a harbinger of the Marsailles car-b-ques.
Anon 7:46 said "Lot of misconceptions about France. In WW1 France sustained military deaths of 1.4 million with a population of perhaps 42 million. This was twice the number for the United Kingdom, which had about the same size population. This is the equivalent of 10.4 million dead Americans today. Even in WW2 French losses were more considerable then is generally realized. France also lost about 400,000 civilian dead, including 60,000 from allied bombing. The Free French and the French underground fought hard throughout the war. The general collapse of France in 1940 was at least partly due to France not having recovered mentally from the Great War. "
Why did the Russians put up a fight against the Nazis? They had a similar experience in the Great War, the Bolshevik Rev, Stalin's purges, and ridiculous casualty numbers from 41-43. Something that the French lack?
In a word, no. After Iraq and Afghanistan it's going to take a long term for the press to automatically support any administration, even a Democratic one. If the Republicans were in power, it would take another Pearl Harbor (or 9-11) to get any press support.
Daniel Ellsburg was a Hero back in the day because his tribe was outside the tent pissing IN . His fellow tribesman were against the war in Vietnam. Woodward (I know, a wasp, but a wasp that knew which way the wind was blowing) and Bernstein and their types loved sticking it to the establishment.
Edward Snowden is a Traitor because his tribe has been emasculated and Ellsburg's tribe is dominant and is the new Establishment.
The new elite is for perpetual war, so those that call for peace are easily dismissed.
http://mattforney.com/2014/02/11/matt-forneys-podcast-extravaganza-episode-23-stinking-death-ecstatical-life/
working class males vs journalism school females at 30:00
PS. Forney is worse at interviewing than Robert Stark
Everybody seems to hate Costas. I wonder why he's still always the main anchor for things.
I don't particularly like him either, but I did agree with him when he said that the new Olympic "sport" of "slopestyle" was "Jackass stuff":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Costas#2014_Olympics_.22Jackass.22_Comments
You're neglecting World War G. Putin is anti-gay, and that's one step short of genocide in the eyes of the press.
Henry Kissinger was the real ruler of the US during the 60s/70s.
So what happened in 1967 that would have made an antiwar fad attractive for a decade or so?
The British mainstream left-media led by the BBC pretty consistently opposed British foreign policy from Thathcher's election in 1979 through to 1997, with perhaps a very toning-down during the height of the 1982 Falklands War - but even then there was a lot of complaining about our sinking the Argentine heavy cruiser General Belgrano, as if it were a war crime - the Argentines disagreed; this was purely a Leftist/Communist-inspired concept. There was not huge oppposition to the 1991 Gulf War, that being so clear cut and having such wide international support, and I think that laid the groundwork for the media shift in the US also. The big change came in 1997 with the election of Tony Blair, for six years until 2003 the left-media was slavishly loyal, including in support of the 1998 attack on Serbia. However the BBC was very unhappy about the insane 2003 attack on Iraq; although they failed to oppose it effectively thanks to the ruthless efforts of Alastair Campbell, things were never the same again - the love affair was over.
David Cameron was very careful to court the BBC/left-media, and has never faced the visceral opposition Thatcher did. I'd say the current situation in 2014 is one of lukewarm support.
Unlike the US, the UK had long had a somewhat influential right-media in the Murdoch papers, The Sun and The Times, which did help Thatcher somewhat - though its influence was never close to that of the BBC. The News of the World phone-hacking scandal effectively destroyed that. The 'balance' requirement for broadcast media largely prevents any opposition to the BBC line from independent broadcasters; Channel 4 News gives an independent left-wing perspective which is more Trotskyite/subversive compared to the BBC's doctrinaire Stalinist ethos. Sky News is neocon-friendly but with very little influence or viewership. ITN (ITV News - terrestrial broadcast news) takes a sort of pro-Royal-Family, generally apolitical/centrist upbeat line and used to have some influence, but the growth of satellite/cable TV destroyed its advertising revenue base, it's now totally dominated by the BBC and no longer significant.
anon:
" But from 1968 to 1987, there was a transition where the new elite who ran the media were in the process of displacing the old elite who ran the government. Post 1987, we've returned to a natural state."
I think that's right. In the US it was the 1992 election of Bill Clinton where the US media saw "our people" take power, so Jan 1993. In the UK it was not until Tony Blair's election in May 1997 that the media saw "our people" take power.
It is somewhat striking though that the US left-media did so little to oppose GW Bush, compared to eg Reagan.
anon:
"The allies cold-shouldered DeGaulle throughout the war and imposed AmGovt upon liberated France. Had they accepted DeGaulle and his forces as equals and included him in the chain of command things might have been different. What if one of the five beaches at D-Day had been given to the F.F. forces to attack? This would have galvanized France."
This seems like Bizarro-world history to me. But say the Allies had bigged up deGaulle even moreso than actually happened, and they had somehow rounded up enough Free French to take part in D-Day in 1944 (about 150 Free French did take part). What exactly do you think would have been different?
Not that the French are 'cheese eating surrender monkeys'. They collapsed in 1940; British forces collapsed at Singapore a couple years later. It happens; successful Third Generation warfare is designed to produce such collapses. France today has a competent military able to engage in colonial warfare (as recently in Mali) and to defend France via the nuclear deterrent. France has created the EU in its own image as a French empire, and is the one European country with an independent foreign policy - the US has influence, but less control than anywhere else. They have a particularly incompetent leftist government right now and some economic problems, but overall seem to be doing ok.
RonMexico said...
Why did the Russians put up a fight against the Nazis? They had a similar experience in the Great War, the Bolshevik Rev, Stalin's purges, and ridiculous casualty numbers from 41-43. Something that the French lack?
Geography. The French ran out of the geography needed to survive the German blitzkrieg while the Soviets had lots of it. German daily losses were heavier in the 45 day campaign against France in 1940 than they were later during Operation Barbarosa against the Soviets.
Shark: "Yes, the French weren't facing extermination. The Russians fought a) because it was quite clear the Nazis intended to take their land, starve them or enslave them, and b) because the NKVD shot any Russians who refused to fight. And even given that, millions of Russians actually collaborated with and fought for the Nazis."
That's my point to the anon. The French just laid down, the Russians, not. ""I am in favor of France being given a zone," Stalin declared, "but I cannot forget that in this war France opened the gates to the enemy."
Re Annonymous 2/11/14, 7:46 PM
2/11/14, 7:46 PM
> In WW1 France sustained military deaths of 1.4 million with a population of perhaps 42 million. This was twice the number for the United Kingdom.<
No, WW1 British dead – which were mostly military - were north of 900,000.
>about 400,000 civilian dead, including 60,000 from allied bombing.<
French civilian casualties in WW2 were about 350,00 and military casualties about 200,000, a goodly number being on the Axis side. Hardly surprising, unlike the UK the country was overrun by invading armies twice during the war. Including in this civilian number were 75,000 Jews in France, with much French willing collaboration, many from Vichy France. These were shipped to the extermination camps.
In WW2 The British lost some 68,000 due to German bombing of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Brits lost about 350,000 in military casualties, 60% more than France did in military casualties, yet other than the Channel Islands, the UK was not invaded.
>The Free French and the French underground fought hard throughout the war<
No, the French underground was notoriously perfidious and over-hyped compared to the resistances in other countries that fell under the Nazi yoke.
>The allies also did little to help.<
No, it’s a matter of record that the British had The BEF – British Expeditionary Force, in France during the German invasion. French units on British flanks collapsed wholesale, read Lidell Heart’s History of the Second World War. Their whole defence policy against Germany was based on the Maginot line, the Germans just went around it, through the Ardennes. After the French capitulation, France became a de-facto Axis power. This was glossed over by Allied propaganda and the myth propagated post WW2. It is a fact that there were allied landings, opposed by the French, in Morocco, North Africa in Nov 42 (operation Torch which was mainly American with a significant UK contingent), Madagascar in 1943 (operation Ironclad by the British) and the French were on both sides in the invasion of the South of France in Aug 44 (operation Dragoon). Additionally French troops garrisoned Vietnam under Japanese command until the Japanese surrender, French aircraft bombed British Gibraltar and Malta.many of the troops that opposed the Allied landings in Normandy, were French. The Waffen SS had a whole French division.
>The pointless sinking of the French fleet by the British<
It wasn’t pointless, it was a tough but necessary decision to prevented the post capitulation French fleet falling into Nazi hands, this would have swung the naval balance of power away from the British. The French could have easily avoided the sinking of their fleet if they had followed Allied instructions to sail for British ports. Their pride was put out and they unwisely didn’t, so they were sunk at Churchill’s direct command, and rightly so.
>allies cold-shouldered DeGaulle <
An inversion. DeGaulle – merely a colonel at the French capitulation - was entirely a creation of the Allies. He was set up with his own ‘Free French’ HQ in London. The Allies perpetuated the convenient myth of the Free French, when in reality France had become a de-facto Axis power.
>What if one of the five beaches at D-Day had been given to the F.F. forces to attack? This would have galvanized France.<
There were not enough French troops serving with the Allies. The bulk serving on D-Day - operation Overlord on 6 June 1944 - were wearing Wehrmacht grey! Some French troops did serve honourably in the Commandos and elsewhere. Many Allied troops were surprised that the French did not – contrary to Allied propaganda – routinely welcome the Allied ‘liberators’. Accounts of this are legion in biographies of those who were there. British SAS reconnaissance patrols in France operating beyond the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area – the front line) found the French extremely treacherous.
Nick - Pretoria
Russia in 1914 was much less unified than Stalin-era Russia. Stalin was able to effectively mobilize most of the population for war (one of the benefits of absolutism).
Please,
explain to a foreigner, what is "homer press"?
"Homer Simpson press"?
Since the Left took total control of the Democrat party post-Watergate, it's been a simple formula:
Republican President = bad foreign policy, boo America
Democrat President = good (or at least ignored) foreign policy, America f*** yeah!
Obama has done nothing to change the policies of the hate hate hated Booosh -- other than to ramp up some of the more egregious ones -- but the hate fest went instantly silent when he took office. Democrats get to bomb useless out of the way places with impunity. On the other hand, in the deeper precincts of the Left you still hear them rant about Reagan's invasion of Grenada, imperialism, American Empire, yak yak yak. A few are honest enough to recognize Obama for what he is, but most pretend they don't see it. Home team and all that.
So what happened in 1967 that would have made an antiwar fad attractive for a decade or so?
The American Left (funded and propelled by the KGB) hadn't yet taken over a major party. So they were against the war to try to "bring down the system," along with all the other 60s social and political agitation (civil rights, Feminism, increased pornography, etc. -- guess who was behind all of that?) Once the Left took control of the D party, then the tactics changed because now there were within the halls of power, not outside trying to get in.
Prior to this, both D and R used to respect the unwritten edict that political disagreements stop at the water's edge; when the Left took over the Democrats stopped respecting this and it was all attack politics, all the time. Those who dominate the Left have a very long history of ruthlessness.
Sailer,
Do you think Russia granting Snowden asylum has anything to do with "our" newfound hatred of Russia?
America is increasingly becoming a laughing stock. Americans will take a while to catch on to this basic fact. Who Americans choose to demonise will increasingly matter less and less. Back in 1950, the US accounted for half of global GDP. It now accounts for less than a fifth. This number will keep falling as China continues to grow. And this year, India is about to elect a politician who is more right-wing than either Reagan or Thatcher was (and guess what? Americans hate him too). The election of that guy could send Indian GDP growth rates into double digits. America is going to need more help geopolitically. It does spend more on defence than the next 20 countries combined - but then spending half of GDP on the military did not save the USSR from collapse. The next twenty years will see the geopolitical retreat of America.
Various people through the years have expressed anger at the French for not having fought hard enough against the Germans to suit the critics. The sofa warriors would have preferred the French to have fought to the last Frenchman. But the French may have considered that they had to do what was best for the French and sit that one out. Danzig may not have been their foremost concern at the time and the fact that the Soviets also invaded Poland muddied the water a bit. The 'freedom fries' bit was really absurd. They smelled a loser in the Iraq adventure and decided to not to get involved. What wars have the critics ever fought in?
See, I think that the media was supportive of Bush from September 2001 to September 2003. Even then, the media was very quick to say in November 2001 that we were in a quagmire in Afghanistan, and in mid-April 2003 that we were in a quagmire in Iraq. While there was a lot of anti-French sentiment, there was also a countermyth that all Europeans were sophisticated, worldly socialists who had everything figured out.
From after September 2003, the media had it in for Bush.
Frenchwomen eagerly embraced the Nazis. The French do not fightbc their women are not worth a hangnail let alone dying.
"Why did the Russians put up a fight against the Nazis? They had a similar experience in the Great War, the Bolshevik Rev, Stalin's purges, and ridiculous casualty numbers from 41-43. Something that the French lack?
Yes, the French weren't facing extermination. The Russians fought a) because it was quite clear the Nazis intended to take their land, starve them or enslave them, and b) because the NKVD shot any Russians who refused to fight. And even given that, millions of Russians actually collaborated with and fought for the Nazis."
Good points. It's also worth mentioning Russia's a lot easier to defend--all that mud in autumn and snow in winter. It's a big, big country, and great to lose attackers in.
Fisk Ellington Rutledge III:
They include many who were formerly communists and more who'd have said they were socialists. It hardly matters; they're dominant in both the schools and both the news and entertainment media.
The net is that all "D"s are socialists of one form or another
and about half of "R"s.
Not a pretty prospect.
It is a myth that the press has been oppositional to the government on foreign policy, at any point since WW II.
Noam Chomsky notes that the NY Times did not turn against the Vietnam War until 1969, one year after Wall Street had given up on it. And even at that point, the Times spoke of US involvement in Vietnam as a blundering effort to do good, rather than as an invasion.
Making jokes about the Russians or French is just kid stuff.
The media are themselves, or are owned by, huge corporations...why would you expect GE or Disney or whoever to take a radical stand on foreign policy? It doesn't make sense.
The media are themselves, or are owned by, huge corporations...why would you expect GE or Disney or whoever to take a radical stand on foreign policy? It doesn't make sense.
Didn't we all figure out years ago that media outlets routinely work against their own financial interest in order to pursue their political interests? Why do you think Fox News so easily stole viewers by being just a teeny bit less Leftist? The logical response by the other networks would be to shift in the same direction politically, but none of them have. Quite the opposite in fact.
A "homer" sports announcer openly roots for his team to win. Good broadcasters can be either one: Harry Caray was a homer for the Cubs, Vin Scully is only subtly biased in favor of the Dodgers.
This post strikes me as way, way off.
The press bandwagoned for US foreign policy after 9/11 and up until about the late summer of 2003. Once the UN compound in Iraq was blown up and it was clear no WMD would ever be found, they turned on a dime.
They have eased off somewhat since Obama became President, but that is an unusual situation because the press understands that Obama's heart is in the "right place": weakness, conciliation, retreat, suck up to enemies, piss on allies, sign bad treaties, with Russia, make a deal with Iran, overlook cheating, etc. So they try to excuse drone strikes and spying, but only because they know that Obama is otherwise always doing the "right" thing.
Poland alone lost more in WW2 than UK, USA and France combined in both World Wars so stop being ridiculous, just stop it.
Frenchwomen eagerly embraced the Nazis. The French do not fightbc their women are not worth a hangnail let alone dying.
Ah, there you go again with generalizations. By french women do you mean 100%, 50%, 25%, 10%, or you just don't know? Just like you lump white women into one category, while ignoring the evidence to the contrary, you appear now to do the same with French women.
Finally to suggest the French did not fight because of their women is purely juvenile. You obviously have limited knowledge of the events in France from 1914 to 1940, and the mood that had overtaken that country.
It is somewhat striking though that the US left-media did so little to oppose GW Bush, compared to eg Reagan.
Simon, the media hated GW Bush and made the 2000 election out to be the GOP stealing it in Florida. But 9-11 happened less than a year later, and the whole nation was on pins and needles. Bill Mahr famously lost his tv job for suggesting that the cowardly hijackers weren't cowards since they themselves flew the planes into the towers.
But that only lasted from 9-11 to the summer of 2003. As the threat decreased and the public realized Iraq was a mistake, the media attacks came back. By 2004 guys like Dan Rather were running news stories about Bush with forged documents.
Reply to Nick Pretoria;
The sinking of the French fleet was a ghastly bloodbath. It was neither necessary or wise. The British admiralty opposed it and it was done on Churchill's personal insistence alone. It turned Vichy France at one stroke into a hostile and sullen opponent.
Admiral James Somerville who was ordered to carry it out, called it a "beastly operation" and "a lousy job"; also "the biggest political blunder of modern times". (Sunday Times, London, 7th August 1960).
Also see the book 1943, THE VICTORY THAT NEVER WAS, by John Grigg. He regards the British massacre of the French fleet as one of Churchill's greatest mistakes of all and has a chapter "fallacies about France" that dispels all of your other arguments. There were plenty of Free French troops that could have been made available to land on D-Day. The allied command and its political leadership just didn't like DeGaulle because they could not control him.
The other big difference was it was still possible to believe America wasn't on the slide in 1968 and 1987.
That ain't true any longer...
I blame gnawing insecurities...
Re Ceasing of the French fleet and Sinking of French warships at Mirs-al-kabir
This documentary covers it very well indeed...
US PBS (not available outside us)http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/episodes/churchills-deadly-decision-watch-the-full-episode/620/
YouTube version (available everywhere)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MDujCzmv9M
Nick - Pretoria
Do you think Russia granting Snowden asylum has anything to do with "our" newfound hatred of Russia?
That made it worse but the "Journolisting" of Russia was evident during the Pussy Riot controversy which happened before anyone had heard of Snowden.
But that only lasted from 9-11 to the summer of 2003. As the threat decreased and the public realized Iraq was a mistake, the media attacks came back
Which just happened to be at a time when the Democrats were sensing a political opportunity after a few years of parroting Bush talking points.
Bush represents the historical lol, Grnerational American.
Thus he gets attacked at the drop of z hat.
Still a tool in the hands of his cabinet though.
"Frenchwomen eagerly embraced the Nazis. The French do not fightbc their women are not worth a hangnail let alone dying."
In the "Sorrow and the Pity" (the docu that Woody forced Annie Hall to see)they mentioned such a Frenchwoman who was caught after the war by vengeful Frenchmen who gouged out her eyes and sewed cockroaches inside. Always wondered what happened to her,and if she lived to give interviews on the experience.
Besides, plenty of men played hootchie koothcie with "enemy" women. You really wonder why our elites start wars, and why. The common people gain nothing and have everything to lose
Anon 2/12:
Those hijackers were cowardly in exactly the same sense that IQ tests are pseudoscience--because lots of people get really mad at you if you disagree with those adjectives. In reality, of course, most people wouldn't be brave enough to knowingly fly hijacked planes into buildings for their cause.
History is full of brave people who fought well for evil causes, notably including the German and Soviet forces during WW2. But acknowledging any virtues in our enemies went against the prevailing propaganda in the US, and enraged lots of people.
Matra:
The press waw almost 100% on board with the Iraq war up until it started going sour, but they remained pretty supportive for a long time. Remember how shocking the collateral murder video was to a lot of people? It's not like US reporters didn't know that stuff was going on, but US media sure didn't push stories about it on the public. To this day, the folks who pushed for that war are the serious foreign policy thinkers who are taken seriously by the prestige media.
You can see the ongoing prestige media support of US foreign policy in the way a lot of talking heads and pundits talk about Snowden and Greenwald now--people who have seriously pissed off a lot of powerful people in the intelligence and diplomatic communities and in the administration.
anon:
>>Anonymous said...
It is somewhat striking though that the US left-media did so little to oppose GW Bush, compared to eg Reagan.
Simon, the media hated GW Bush and made the 2000 election out to be the GOP stealing it in Florida. But 9-11 happened less than a year later, and the whole nation was on pins and needles. Bill Mahr famously lost his tv job for suggesting that the cowardly hijackers weren't cowards since they themselves flew the planes into the towers.
But that only lasted from 9-11 to the summer of 2003. As the threat decreased and the public realized Iraq was a mistake, the media attacks came back. By 2004 guys like Dan Rather were running news stories about Bush with forged documents.<<
Fair enough. I can understand why 9/11 would force open a pro-Bush window. A major attack against a generally patriotic country can do that.
I have a pretty mixed view of France's performance in WW2 but there is something to be said for the defence.
Their performance in WW1 played the same strategic role and corresponded in proportionate losses and psychic damage to Russia's role in WW2. Granted, it was left to Britain, its empire and to a small degree the US to win in 1918, but France was the indispensable nation, and bled dry. As a Canadian of recent British descent, I yield to none in stressing the dominant role of the empire in victory, and I would add that contrary to some GErman propaganda of the day the war was indisputably more in France's own cause than any other ally's. Still, the French stood up and left it all on the field. And made Germany pay big time. I give France all props for it.
I can well imagine they thought less of doing it again in 1940, they did indeed have less room to recover than the Russians, they suffered pretty big losses for a one month campaign, and given the military situation and [as others noted] the relatively lesser punishment Germany proposed to inflict on them, their decision whatever I might think of it was pretty sane.
And that comment from Stalin can hardly be allowed to go unremarked. At the time France "opened the gates to the enemy", the USSR was the ally of that same enemy. And certainly to friend to Britain or France, let alone unfortunate Poland. I don't see why corrupt plunderers of neighbouring states at the Nazis' side should have been passing judgment on those who salvaged what they could.
On the other side, the allies didn't do that rough by France. Churchill's gambit may have been politically unwise, but the Vichy government's reliability had to be regarded as suspect. TEchnically, France's legal government was in a state of war with Germany suspended by armistice, as well as a sort of German ally, and its security and intelligence services were on every side at once for a while [there's some writing about Vichy security waging a counterintelligence war with the Germans in the free zone]. But that fleet was a huge prize. And the Allies negotiated quite a bit with Vichy. De Gaulle, a de jure rebel, was largely built up by the allies as an alternative, and the Free French forces were given a fair amount to do in combat in Africa, in italy, and in the liberation of northern France including Paris. I wouldn't have trusted them with a whole beach either. There was some good commando work on the day, though.
And the US didn't impose AMGOV on France. They recognized the Provisional Government.
Post a Comment