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

by John J. Miller and Mark Molesky

Book Overview

Libert?? Egalit?? Fraternit?? Or just plain gall? In this provocative and brilliantly researched history of how the French have dealt with the United States, John J. Miller and Mark Molesky... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0385512198
• ISBN13: 9780385512190
• Release Date: October 2004
• Publisher: Doubleday Books
• Length: 294 Pages
• Weight: 1.25 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.9" x 6.5" x 9.4"

Customer Reviews

Real French Revolutionary Slogan: Travail, Famille, Patrie!!

Next is French disloyalty during the War of Independence. France merely "helped" America because of tactical ease to stymie England's expansion and prevent British concessions after Saratoga, but France menacingly plotted to not comply with or disobey American strategy against the English in some of the most decisive battles!!!! This ruse was schemed by Vergennes, Foreign Affairs Minister, when he drafted two treaties with Benjamin Franklin to solidify the alliance. The first palpable "assistance" came from stuffy D'Estaing (inexperienced in navy matters) who arrived stalled, dearly permitting the English to consolidate at New York in July 1778. Henceforth, D'Estaing mismanaged an opportunity to rout the English by placing his heaviest guns on Sandy Hook--island with view of NY harbor where English ships consolidated--the English took it for themselves. D'Estaing followed with other tactical misdeeds at Newport, St. Lucia, and Savannah. Another infamous citation was naval officer Landais who during John Paul Jones' battle with the Serapis fired on Jones' ship, almost costing him victory.

The French are the French, Unfortunately

Did you every wonder why your intuition or hard to explain life time experience caused you to dislike France and things French so much? How about why you have such loathing for the tuck-their-tail French government? How about the oxymoron - French allies? The authors, not mistaken for Francophiles, provide an exceptional, accurate, and thoroughly footnoted explanation of the failed relationship between France and the United States in particular and the world community in general. Nothing has changed between 1744 (French and Indian Wars) and the War in Iraq. Lafayette remains an American hero but few other Frenchmen do. Despite loud French contention of cultural and linguistic superiority, superior worldly insight, and long binding friendships they remain more enemy than friend. They are mostly a failed colonial power. The authors explain why. French leadership of Europe is a hallucination. Absent an effective military since Napoleon or a navy that floats and an emasculated foreign policy, France instead acts as a "provoker" rather than leader, partner in democracy, or even a trusted follower. Readers may not like the Bush Administration's foreign or counter terrorism policy but it is a comparative work of genius compared to the French alternative. France has created over many generations a national DNA of failure, appeasement, surrender, and national political cowardice. Resolve is sacrificed for expediency. Missing from this book is an explanation of French industrial espionage that has prevailed too long in the United States. The book is well written, easy to read, and objective. Recommended for readers 16 and older.

Franco-American relations haven't always been rosy . . .

When reviewing a book, it usually helps if the reviewer has an accurate idea of what the book is about. Looking at most of the negative reviews below tells us more about the reviewers and their prejudices and less about the book they've supposedly read (although some admit that they haven't even bothered to read it). To begin with, most of these reviewers seem to think that the book pretends to be a complete history of Franco-American relations. If they look closely they'll find that the book itself has no such pretensions. It is a book about the antagonistic aspects of French and American relations. That's all. Why write such a book rather than a complete history? Well, there's a myth out there in the journalistic ether that holds that the Franco-American relationship was a centuries-old concert of amity and alliance -- that is, until George W. Bush, by going to war in Iraq, managed to produce an unprecedented rift with our "oldest ally". In a matter of months, he had supposedly soured, damaged, and nearly destroyed America's 200-year-old friendship with France. Actually, Bush did nothing of the sort. His administration is hardly the first to have had problems with France. There have been earlier and more serious rifts -- and even military hostilities: Franco-American friendship hadn't even lasted 20 years before the two nations went to war in 1797. One has to wonder why most of our journalists couldn't bring themselves to formulate their remarks in a more historically-informed way. Specifically, one has to wonder why they couldn't simply say that France and the United States had re-entered one of their periodic antagonisms. One explanation is that some of them are simply ignorant of the facts. Hence the need for a book like this. But don't take it from me (or even from Miller and Molesky). Here to enlighten us is Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, author of "France and the United States: From the Beginnings to the Present Day" (Chicago, 1978): "The quarrels [between France and the United States] have left their mark across two centuries of history. They began in 1782 with the peace negotiations, grew under France's National Convention, of which President Washington was decidedly not an admirer, reached a climax with the 'undeclared war' [the so-called Quasi-War], and continued from Jefferson to Jackson over the indemnities relating to the privateer war. They flared up again under Napoleon III over his Mexican adventure, then again early in the Third Republic over the Spanish-American War. The Dreyfus affair triggered off a campaign of censure in the American press. Then, after the friendly intermission of 1917-18, the conflict became more intense than ever, first over the treaty, in which Wilson was seen as being dominated by the 'cynical' Clemenceau, and then over the war-debt problem. After the fall of France in 1940 we find an amused contempt for de Gaulle the "prima donna" and later for the defects of the Fourth Republic, plus

Zut Alors! The Americains are Getting Wise

I am no right winger, and I certainly won't like a book because Donald Rumsfeld approves of its thesis. And I don't think this book will change the mind of a Francophile...but it might just take someone a bit suspicious of French motives and make him or her DEEPLY suspicious. What I really liked about this book is how it pretty much read like an American history book, tautly written and well, except through the lens of French interaction with the U.S. In other words, it's fascinating how bound up the French have been in key moments in American history: The War for Independence, the World Wars, the Cold War, Vietnam, the War on Terror. The Louisiana Purchase, which doubled our nation's size, is attributed here to Napoleon's selling a stock high, knowing that he lacked the reach and funds to defend French holdings in the New World. Face it: The authors' idea that the French, whose global empire once included most of West Africa, Quebec, the Mississippi Valley, and pieces of Southeast Asia and South America, are now resentful also-rans is damn near irrefutable. For so opinionated a thesis to appear during so politically correct a time is downright refreshing! America's global policy is far from perfect, but I'll take it over French follies any day. I am left of center on most issues, and I would never subscribe to "The National Review," but good writing is good writing. compelling history is compelling history, and having a strong clear opinion bolstered by endless facts is a good thing. Let someone write a book marshalling the evidence that the French have been our good buddies for 250 years; slim as a pamphlet that one will be. This book, with its strong opinions and clear descriptions of historical personages, just flies by. Devour it in a few days then enter the debate.

Know what the book is and isn't about

The reviews of this book swing between such extremes that I decided to do a little research of my own to see just what is going on here. The Library Journal charged that Miller and Molesky ignore the academic studies published by Henry Blumenthal and Jean-Baptiste Duroselle. So I looked up Blumenthal's "A Reappraisal of Franco-American Relations, 1830-1871" and found the following: "Contrary to popular notions, the relations between the two countries were not friendly. Usual references to the historic Franco-American friendship from the times of Lafayette to the present conveniently ignore crucial issues and petty incidents which led to a growing estrangement between Paris and Washington in the last century . . . Franco-American alienation in the mid-nineteenth century gradually developed and deepened as the result of a multitude of conflicting policies and viewpoints." And in his "France and the United States: Their Diplomatic Relations, 1789-1914" Blumenthal notes that "the celebrated friendship between France and the United States has been a historical myth." This is precisely Miller and Molesky's thesis. So, far from running afoul of Blumenthal's seminal works, Miller and Molesky are precisely on the same page. Duroselle's "France and the United States: From the Beginnings to the Present", while noting many of the "crucial issues and petty incidents" mentioned by Blumenthal, tends to whitewash the actions and motivations of French statesmen when discussing their questionable antagonisms to the US. Duroselle's book is also a summary history and typically glosses over Franco-American frictions rather than exploring them in detail. Thus, there was probably a good reason for Miller and Molesky to ignore a book that wasn't exactly impartial or exhaustive. The problem, it seems to me, is that reviewers who are hostile to this book totally misunderstand what the book tries to (and does) achieve. The book is NOT a complete history of Franco-American relations and has no pretensions to historical exhaustiveness. Nor is it an attack on France by a couple of angry partisans. What it IS, is an exposure of the MYTH that France and the United States were essentially allies for 200 years before George Bush stumbled into town and shot up the Baghdad corral. This "myth" is incredibly easy to refute and Miller and Molesky marshal an impressive body of evidence (spanning 300 years) to do just that. But they have by no means tried to prove that France has NEVER been our ally (or that it can't be again). What they have given us is the antagonistic side of Franco-American history - a side that is surprising, enlightening, sometimes shocking, and quite relevant to today's frictions between France and the United States. We should consider ourselves fortunate that France's worst intentions with regard to the US were never realized - otherwise we might think of it today as a positively hostile nation rather than simply an occasional thorn in our side.