Our Oldest Enemy : A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France

Rating:
Summary: Debate the Book Over Beer and Wine
Review: All nations, if they are to have a future, act in their self-interest. Any nation that ceases to act in its self-interest will cease to exist. In the cases of the United States and France, their expressions of self-interest are polar opposites. For the United States, self-interest is balanced or mediated by benevolence that developed from a strong Judeo-Christian heritage ("Love your neighbor as yourself"). For France, self-interest is selfish cold calculating pragmatic realpolitik. (This is why Michel Foucault's assessment of William Tuke and the Quakers in Madness and Civilization is so wide of the mark.)

This fundamental difference in the expression of national self-interest has implications for international relations and negotiations. The United States works in the sphere of non-zero sum games (where all parties can win or lose). France works in the sphere of zero sum games (where one party wins and the others lose). Of course, the United States does and will become frustrated in any game (interaction/negotiation) involving France because their national presupositons differ radically from its own; after all, France's behavior looks duplicitous as they maneuver for position.

Time and again Miller and Molesky illustrate these points; unfortunately, they never quite articulate them. Time after time they fall short; nevertheless, I recommend Our Oldest Enemy. It is the kind of book you read and debate with educated friends. It is a largely unflattering compilation of cynical French interactions with the United States and benevolent American interactions with France. Our Oldest Enemy should provoke hours of vigorous historical and political discussions over beer or wine. Isn't that what a great book should do?

By the way, to be politically correct you better serve a Napa Zinfandel and avoid that pretentious French Bordeaux. Send me the Bordeaux.

Rating:
Summary: A great read
Review: Apart from your opinion of France this book is a wonderful history of the British Navy and its place in shaping our modern institutions. It is also a great comentary on military power and its use and abuse. The lessons of the past have great relevance to our present situation. I'll read it again. I highly recommend this book

Rating:
Summary: A great book for history enthusiasts
Review: Buy this book. It will inform anyone interested in American-French relations why the current Bush Administration's distrust of French leadership is in line with the feeling of previous American presidents: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

Rating:
Summary: Opinionated, A poor read
Review: Don't waste your money (as I did) unless you want a poorly written, simplistic view of France. Not even humourous. Biased and uninteresting.

Rating:
Summary: Is this really considered serious ?
Review: I am truly amazed... Being a history student and specializing in Franco-american relationships, I must say that some of the unrealities of this book are astounding. I would guess that around three quarters of it are inadequate, exagerated or simply irrelevant bits and bobs of international diplomacy jutted in to further an unobjective point of view.

If these authors had started writing the book by stating their attitude towards France, I wouldn't be so upset. Indeed, what Molesky and Miller should have begun by saying is something along these lines : "The stance taken by Jacques Chirac before the Iraqi war is one that infuriates us. We are genuinely angry and all our efforts have been articulated at looking back into the past at all the flaws in Franco-American international relations".

One will quite quickly notice that all these "flaws" are, according to these authors, provoked by France... Reference is made to "the French" as though the "oldest enemies" of the US were a nation of people who think alike : all anti-American, all anti-war, all pseudo-intellectuals who prefer poetry and talk to getting things done. These generalisations will quickly annoy the objective reader.

Simply to sum up and make my point clear : "Our oldest enemies" is a frightening book which takes us back to the McCarthyism years - "Since they are not with us, they are against us..."

I am sure that a Harvard professor like Molesky and a good journalist like Miller could quite clearly have written a more "serious" book, one that looks at the diplomacy problems without getting into a personal vendetta.

Rating:
Summary: Uneven but interesting
Review: I was very excited to get this book for Christmas. I was less excited after reading it. Although it contained a lot of good information I considered it uneven. It is a question of the thesis of the book, that America's relationship with France is disastrous, I would say it has been: for French prestige that is.

Now if the thesis was solely: "It is a myth that the relationship with France is based upon friendship and that the idea of France is an ally of America is false." Then this book would be quite correct. However, much like Hitchens' book THE TRIAL OF HENRY KISSINGER it delivers the minor message while not proving the major one.

Early on the book it points to the French use of Indians in attacks on settlements. It is true that the American Indian in war was a savage and ruthless foe but the same encouragement and aid for those attacks were by the British during and after the American Revolution. This was not a uniquely "Gallic" form of war.

From there it tells of the weakness of the French republics, the horror of the French Terror, the barbarity of the revolutions that followed, and the dishonorable methods used from the XYZ affair to Napoleon III and beyond. It's accurate, some might be new to people who don't know French history and it is good reading.

The book's failure is showing how this was directed at America in particular. From what I read and saw the French used these methods with ALL the nations they dealt with (and still do). If you follow the thread from Deerfield to Iraq what you find is France promoting its own overriding desire for international relevance without regard for anything else. It is a tale of nationalistic narcissism.

This book makes a VERY solid case that over hundreds of years France has reached the point where nationalistic narcissism eclipses the goal of French survival (read Islamic fundamentalism) but that's not what the book is supposed to be about.

On the other hand consider this: France's wars in the New World led to British settlement west of the Appalachians, hardened Americans for the coming war with England (James Webb might say they were hardened already but that's my next review.)
and led to American independence. The XYZ wars led to American privateering on a grand scale while being a training ground for such American heroes as Bainbridge foreshadowing 1812. Napoleon's maneuverings kept the British too busy to check our westward expansion, led to the Louisiana Purchase and incredible British defeats in the North by Perry and MacDonough and by Jackson in the south. Her maneuvers in the Civil war did little to help the south, while her retreat in Mexico strengthened the North. Her dependence on the US in WWI made us stronger and her defeat in WWII made us the greatest power in the world where we remain. The amazing thing isn't France's nationalistic-narcissism. It is the left's decision to buy into it!

The conclusion is clear: France's nationalistic narcissism is hazardous to its health and ours. This is the true story of the book and it is told well. A better title would be "Our impotent rival the story of France's disastrous rivalry with America."

Rating:
Summary: Excellent book
Review: Miller and Molesksy uncover a great deal of backstory to US-Franco international relations. Well-researched.

Rating:
Summary: 'Our Oldest Friend'
Review: One could easily make the case that the British are the Oldest
Enemy of these United States. We actually fought two wars against the British; almost fought two more wars against the British; and got roped into two World Wars that were the result of horrible, horrible British (and French) schemes and RealPolitik Statecraft. (Read 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,' the loathsome (SECRET) Munich Treaty of 1938, The'Treaty of Versailles,' events surrounding the sinking of the Lusitania
and the 'Mexican Memorandum' which was actually used to bring
the US into WWI.

Even though at least two of my ancestors died fighting the French and Indians in the 18th Century, I bear no ill will
against the French or Indians. The French and Indian War was primarily another war between the British and the French and the colonists just happened to get caught in the middle of it and.

Like many of the other reviewers, I am very, very grateful for
the French help during our Revolutionary War. Nuff said about
that.

How have the French behaved during the past 50 years? Like a
good friend. Like a good friend, France has told us a number
of times to get our house in order---examples:

1. The French warned the US to abide by the Geneva accord which
ended the French-IndoChinese War. Part of that treaty dictated
that the US would allow free and open elections by the Vietnamese
to determine if their country were to be one nation or two
nations.

What did the US do? We told the French to stuff their advice
and told our Viet puppet to not hold free and open elections.

2. After WWII the US told the free nations of Western Europe
that eventually we'd like them to defend themselves. When the
French grew fearful that wimpy JFK was going to be the Soviet's
bitch, de Gaulle took France out of NATO and kicked the
American troops out of Paris where they were useless and the
US reassigned the troops where they could do some good---Germany.

France then developed its own nuclear strike force (force de frappe) because France still feared the US was becoming gutless towards the Soviet threat.

Thank God! For de Gaulle. Vive la France!

3. De Gaulle, also, begged the US to use its vast energy resources and technologies to become energy independent and not fund an Islamic revival. How did the US respond?

The US Government policy was to make the US and Western Europe energy dependent. To that end the US practically destroyed the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy in the US and tried to destroy
energy independence in Western Europe by abrogating long term
'Atoms for Peace' treaties with France and Western Europe and
Japan that had been made during the Eisenhower Administration.

Even though US actions set back France's energy independence
programs 10 years, the French now produce about 80% of their
electricity with nuclear reactors; and, shortly (within 10 years)
the French could be completely energy independent---not only that
; but, the French are the leaders in all areas of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Again, thank God for the French!

I could go on and on; but, I cringe when Bush talks about bringing sanctions against any nation that supports Islamic
Terrorism because THE UNITED STATES IS THE LARGEST FUNDER OF
ISLAMIC REVIVALISM AND TERRORISM IN THE WORLD due to our moronic
and suicidal energy and foreign policies---Each day the US sends
over $100,000,000 per day to Islamic nations that hate our guts.
How you gonna win this so-called 'War on Terror' when Bush and
friends say they'll continue these policies for years to come?

Again, Vive la France!

Sincerely!
Bill Bryan(...)



Rating:
Summary: The "Bothersome Ally"
Review: Two more Francophobes? Not really. Miller and Molesky are, however, brutal realists. Most countries have their core of Americabashers. In fairness to them, Joe Six-pack in not an altogether likeable personna. This book, however, concentrates on dogmatic anti-Americanism, rather than those who get turned off by fathead American tourists.

OLDEST ENEMY... is a little weak early on. The authors confuse France's apparent backstabbing of the new American Republic with Realpolitiking. Their analysis gets interesting as it moves into fin de siecle America.

Here, they stressed, was when the French began resenting America's rise with France's own decline from the global political arena. This resentment merged with the pseudo-intellectual drivel of the era and took on a momentum of its own.

France's collapse in May 1940, and De Gaulle's obnoxiousness throughout the War exacerbated it all. French intellectuals' post-war embrace of Stalinism remains "a question for the ages." This is an important book for understanding why the US Governmenet has long considered France a "bothersome Ally."

Rating:
Summary: an emotional joyride
Review: While this book is horrible history, its great if you hate the French and want to explore your own delicious feelings of hate (admit it, hate, whether it be of evil right wing fanatics, or LIBSLIBSLIBS, the list could go on, is a very enjoyable emotion). Want to read a book about French/American relations, go somewhere else and read a boring history book(I garentee it will not be as emotional satisfying.