If you have any interest in the subject, this is an extremely lucid history of the relationship between these countries. I discovered many fascinating facts and episodes in the history. These help me understand assumptions and opinions I have taken for granted, and opened my eyes to the power of differing points of view on the same action, whether individuals or states.
The second part starts to lack as much insight as it approaches more modern times, but that is not surprising considering the power of time to bring clarity to the trends.
One major theme that strikes me is how reluctant partners these two countries were, despite standing shoulder to shoulder in WWI and on the same side in WWII. At the beginning of the C20 the British empire was only just starting the descent from its height, while France had been on that journey since 1870, and really since Napoleon (the real one). Britain has clearly always struggled to balance its feeling as an island and independent world power, versus its role in Europe. But, I think much of the reluctance came from this difference in timing of relative decline in world power status, and the realization of what must be done to adapt.
These differences drove debates over the peace afterwards, which in many ways sowed the seeds for WWII. I was struck though by the economic impacts of the Great Depression, as we see responses today to our own economic struggles. The British tried to develop a free trade answer to the rapid contraction of international commerce, while the French sought a more protectionist response. The parallels today are uncanny, but then unsurprising when I think about it. Britain's empire then is its place in global finance today. France remains a rich land able to sustain much of its own needs.
Regarding WWII, Bell does a great job bringing insight to what is obvious with some reflection. '1940 was for France a time of tragedy, defeat and occupation. For the British it was 'their finest hour'.' Watching the 65th year D-Day commemoration this weekend, it still seems that the French find it easier to think of the Americans as their liberators than the British. Although I think they felt much better after DeGaulle's 'Non'
Most amazing facts go down to the offers of Union between the two countries; once by the British in 1940, and then by the French premier in 1956. History could really have moved a different way, especially in the post-war era. But Britains's decline was now catching up with her, while France had had since 1940 to get her head around re-building and re-purpose. The opposite reactions to the Suez action are striking. I think a dark day for the British even now, because of those aspirations to be the world leader. An episode the French had and have less of an issue with because they were comfortable in playing their role. The testing of nuclear weapons and sinking of Rainbow Warrior in the 90s are continued actions of a nation more comfortable to go it alone.
The 80s and early 90s were still a time for re-building confidence in Britain, and the economic and political momentum of Britain was back up in the last decade. Based much on global finance, that could prove to be a shaky ground for the country. It can continue to be able to arbitrage between Europe and America, but China and the east are growing more substantial. Britain may need to throw its full political and economic weight behind Europe, while culturally maintaining its confidence as part of the Anglo-American team.
France has already thrown its lot in with Germany in the name of Europe. It too needs to have confidence in its personality being strong enough to maintain distinct, without trying to hold back further development of the union it is part of, or other global institutions where it still maintains a single seat.
The second part starts to lack as much insight as it approaches more modern times, but that is not surprising considering the power of time to bring clarity to the trends.
One major theme that strikes me is how reluctant partners these two countries were, despite standing shoulder to shoulder in WWI and on the same side in WWII. At the beginning of the C20 the British empire was only just starting the descent from its height, while France had been on that journey since 1870, and really since Napoleon (the real one). Britain has clearly always struggled to balance its feeling as an island and independent world power, versus its role in Europe. But, I think much of the reluctance came from this difference in timing of relative decline in world power status, and the realization of what must be done to adapt.
These differences drove debates over the peace afterwards, which in many ways sowed the seeds for WWII. I was struck though by the economic impacts of the Great Depression, as we see responses today to our own economic struggles. The British tried to develop a free trade answer to the rapid contraction of international commerce, while the French sought a more protectionist response. The parallels today are uncanny, but then unsurprising when I think about it. Britain's empire then is its place in global finance today. France remains a rich land able to sustain much of its own needs.
Regarding WWII, Bell does a great job bringing insight to what is obvious with some reflection. '1940 was for France a time of tragedy, defeat and occupation. For the British it was 'their finest hour'.' Watching the 65th year D-Day commemoration this weekend, it still seems that the French find it easier to think of the Americans as their liberators than the British. Although I think they felt much better after DeGaulle's 'Non'
Most amazing facts go down to the offers of Union between the two countries; once by the British in 1940, and then by the French premier in 1956. History could really have moved a different way, especially in the post-war era. But Britains's decline was now catching up with her, while France had had since 1940 to get her head around re-building and re-purpose. The opposite reactions to the Suez action are striking. I think a dark day for the British even now, because of those aspirations to be the world leader. An episode the French had and have less of an issue with because they were comfortable in playing their role. The testing of nuclear weapons and sinking of Rainbow Warrior in the 90s are continued actions of a nation more comfortable to go it alone.
The 80s and early 90s were still a time for re-building confidence in Britain, and the economic and political momentum of Britain was back up in the last decade. Based much on global finance, that could prove to be a shaky ground for the country. It can continue to be able to arbitrage between Europe and America, but China and the east are growing more substantial. Britain may need to throw its full political and economic weight behind Europe, while culturally maintaining its confidence as part of the Anglo-American team.
France has already thrown its lot in with Germany in the name of Europe. It too needs to have confidence in its personality being strong enough to maintain distinct, without trying to hold back further development of the union it is part of, or other global institutions where it still maintains a single seat.
Comments