Throughout history, France and the Anglo-Saxons have spent most of their time hating each other and waging countless wars, some of which are serious in history.
The rivalry does not stop at the only military fact but also at the cultural influence etc...
And still recently we saw with Aukus an Anglo-Saxon bloc being created to the disadvantage of France.
In the end, despite the rather good relations between our countries, doesn't there really exist again this hatred still buried between Anglo-Saxons and French?
Are the Anglo-Saxons and France enemies eternal enemies?
The problem with the premise of the question is that it "personalizes" that which is actually a matter of calculation. To the extent this extends to the cultural realm, there is as much cross pollination of cultures as there is rivalry.
In the narrower foreign policy sphere, ALWAYS recall these pertinent quotes:
From Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
From Theodore Roosevelt: "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."
From John Quincy Adams: "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Oh, and my personal favorite:
From Camillo di Cavour: "Astonish them with my ingratitude." (His response when asked by a reporter what he would do for the Italian liberals who helped him unite Italy.)
Please note, national interests are rooted in geography, history, demographics and economics and a whole host of similar factors. Where national interests coincide, nations cooperate. Where not, they don't.
The Anglo-Saxons tended, for a variety of reasons, to be rivals to the French. Yet, when there interests coincided - see also the world wars as two excellent examples - the "Anglo-Saxons" spilled the blood of their own to help the French. Again, these are matters of cold calculation and NOT sentimentality.
Indeed, even your characterization of the Anglo-Saxons suggests a unity of identity that does not really exist. See also the book "Grand Improvisation: America confronts the British Superpower, 1945 to 1957" by Derek Leebaert. Also recall who sided with whom in the 1956 Suez War.
As far as culture goes, the term is a bit vague, but accepting it generically, cultures tend to grate against one another and influence one another as they rub up against one another. For example, think of the influence of the ideas of Rousseau on contemporary American liberals. The latter are not even aware of this influence in many cases, but it is quite real.
However, you need not even look that deeply. Americans may sneer at the French as "Cheese eating surrender monkeys," and yet they gulp down French food - especially French wines - as if they were going out of style.
Of course culture and strategic interests can influence and modify perceptions of each other, but the reality is that the relationship is more complicated then the premise of the question suggests. Besides, in the geopolitical realm at least, the question speaks of "eternal" enemies. See Lord Palmerston above and also recall the words of Benjamin Disraeli: "Finality is not in the vocabulary of politics."
P. S. Hope you had a nice Easter Sunday. We just got back in town and are still unpacking, but we had a great time.
0
19 Reply
Asker
+1 y
I'm not going to contradict you on the interest. But I was reading a book by an English historian who explains that among many French and English leaders there really is mutual hatred and resentment.
And that even during agreements and good relations there is always a part of reciprocal mistrust.
Oh great, I hope your children had lots of chocolate 🍫 I had a very good Easter thank you I'm like a child with chocolates.
Yes, and I am sure for every "English" - do you mean British or English, that too makes a difference - writer who dislikes the French, you will find any number who like them. One historian does not a historical consensus make.
The bottom line is that human affairs are far too complex to boil down to such simply black or white analysis. Besides, you write, "... who explains that among many French and English leaders there really is mutual hatred and resentment." Many? How many? All, some or none?
Further, how does one measure that standard? Churchill found DeGalle extremely hard to work with - and yet greatly admired him for his courage and sense of national honor.
As to this: "And that even during agreements and good relations there is always a part of reciprocal mistrust." Yup. Ever shall it always be thus. Such is the nature of international affairs. Which to repeat are about cold calculations and interests, not affections and sentimentality.
Anyhow, thanks. The Bunny was VERY good to the kids and they were pleased. In fact, mom and dad have to keep a close eye, otherwise there diet would have no nutritional value at all.
Glad to hear that you had a Happy Easter Sunday and all our best to you and yours.
Well you always have to watch the children with chocolate 🤣 believe it or not but my mother yells at me because she finds that I eat too much chocolate 😅
I send you to the works of English historians like Isabelle Tombs, Jeremy Black and Philippe Mansel.
They do not only speak of an era but rather of an atmosphere over several centuries.
In the end, don't forget that the English and the French fought two hundred years wars. During this period, you can observe whether it is in England or in France, in their respective press and in their politics of anti-English or French sentiments.
Just for France I can quote you Choiseul, Louis XIV, Louis XV, Napoleon, Robespierre Do you know these words of Robespierre? “As a Frenchman, as a representative of the people, I declare that I hate the English people." Of course there is the UK equivalent.
Where you are right is that there were also artists and politicians who admire the culture of both countries. for example Victor Hugo, Voltaire, Talleyrand was a great Anglophile. I assume there was the equivalent in the UK.
So many centuries of war leave marks on the memory of the people, with all the prejudices that go with it.
By the way, I want to make it clear that I am not anti-Anglosaxon. Except when I talk about history, the emotional side takes over and I become anti-English (this is a joke).
Seriously nobody cares about this bullshit today, it's just in the past and the French got their ass kicked by what you call the "Anglo-Saxons", therefore the English ruled the world and it is their culture with the Americans who have largely reigned over the world.
Summarizes this as simply as "Defeat of France".
Anyway the majority of people do not care about all this, the French and the Anglo-Saxons generally appreciate each other and have good relations. end of the story.
Yes, but the term "eternal enemies," by your standard, could be applied to all nations and cultures and all times. In fact, their status as friend or enemy has varied according to circumstance and a host of other factors.
Conflict is an endemic state of the human condition and because they have been rivals in the past does not negate that they have also been friends. By definition, then, this is NOT "eternal." Rather it is conditional and circumstantial.
The French aided the Americans in the American revolution against the British. So much for the Anglo-Saxons. The Americans and the British aided the French in two world wars. So much for "eternal enemies."
Bottom line, the word "eternal" connotes a definitive finality that is simply not a reality of the human condition. See again Lord Palmerston's quote. "WE HAVE NI ETERNAL ALLIES, AND WE HAVE NO PERPETUAL ENEMIES..."
Let's leave the example of France and the United Kingdom.
But take the example of the USA and Russia. I feel like Americans have an "anti-Russian" sentiment that seems quite inked and deep. I remember a very contemptuous interview with Mr. Obama when he spoke of Russia. he was not far from calling them the Barbarians of the North, as they were formerly called in Europe.
there must also be an anti-American sentiment in Russia.
Is it not this mistrust that has prevented American politicians from trying to get closer to Russia to counter China, as Kissinger once made China move closer to the USA to counter the USSR?
Yet, when Governor Romney claimed - during his presidential race against Mr. Obama - that Russia was the USA's preeminent national security concern, Mr. Obama mocked him, saying, "Give the 1980s a call. They want their foreign policy back."
Again, context matters. Ask any American at the moment what they think of the Russians after the Ukraine invasion, they won't have many good things to say. Yet during Mr. Obama's tenure, the Russians were not even much on American's minds.
Really, you are belaboring a definition that does not define. Attitudes between nations and cultures will ebb and flow. Lasting impressions may OR MAY NOT be made, but in general they are NOT a motivating force.
In that connection, what say the French of the Arabs? Think of the French experiences in Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia and Algeria. Think of the banlieues. Also think of French anti-Semitism. See also Vichy.
About the most you can say that you have done is identified a frailty in the human condition. The extent to which that frailty is an animating force in diplomatic or even cultural affairs varying with time and circumstance.
The opinion of the French about Arabs is negative. ask the same thing to an Arab and he will tell you that the French are horrible colonizers, slavers and that it was their parents who made France. as de Gaulle said "Try to integrate oil and vinegar. Shake the bottle. After a while, they will separate again."
For Vichy anti-Semitism in particular, things are more complicated than Paxton suggests.
My point is these conflicts hardly make France and these nations/cultures "eternal enemies." France was on the side of Israel - in effect - at Suez. France has worked both for and against various Arab states.
The problem with your question is that it is trying to give more weight to the on-again/off-again nature of these relationships than is warranted. "Eternal enemies" suggests something elemental when, as often as not, circumstance dictates the nature of the relationship between the French state and the Arabs, Anglo-Saxons, Jews, etc.
In drawing the picture of "eternal enemies," the paradox is that you oversimplify a far more complex phenomenon. Oh, and in the bargain, unintentionally I am sure, makes it look like France (or the French) is (are) going out of its (their) way to look for enemies.
As I said at the outset, the premise of the question is a flawed oversimplification of a far more complex history.
at the end of the day I agree that there are no "eternal enemies". Nothing is eternal and it obviously depends on circumstances and events.
However beyond the words "eternal"it's not this was where I was coming from.
I wanted to say that centuries of war against the same nation always leave traces and prejudices and sometimes always deep down a negative feeling.
Today the French appreciate the Anglo-Saxons in general, but for example with the aukus business we have seen a little Anglopho-Saxonphobia return.
For the Arabs, centuries of crusades and colonization inevitably leave traces. Look at the last words for example of the Algerian leader on France and he returns to these subjects. and it is not the only one in the middle east to do so.
But in the end, if France still wants to keep influence in these territories, it is obliged to create more or less good relations with these states, just as these states are sometimes obliged to do with France even if it considers us as d horrible colonizer etc. Quite simply because national interests require it. However, this resentment will always remain.
Delete the word eternal from my question if you want.
Well, here then my point. "Eternal" connotes something. You cannot waive it away because it is not what you meant to say.
If you want valid answers, care must be taken in how you formulate your question. As someone once said, "God is in the adjective and the devil is in the details."
I assume perfectly eternal. In fact this word was a reference to Louis XV who addressed his minister. When I wrote this word I had this reference in mind
Well - and by the way, you had a question that I will get to early next week where I will make a similar point - you can't have in your head what you mean and expect others to know what you mean. People will read the question as they see it, not whatever you had in mind when you asked it.
So either you explain what you mean or you phrase the question in such a way as that it conveys your meaning. As it is, "eternal enemy" has a connotation in conventional usage that the evidence will not bear.
@nightdrot You seem to be wasting your time trying to explain to this girl the true nature of international relations. but she seems stubborn. I noticed in several of your answers that you like to give people time to answer to make them understand things and it's to your credit but sometimes you just waste your time like here.
@Mikemyth561 Thank you for your kind remarks to me. However, you are being a bit harsh and more than a little unfair toward @julie4.
In fact, we frequently exchange ideas and I have found her, on the whole, to be very pleasant, intelligent and willing to admit error. In fact, we actually continued this discussion, partly privately, partly in another question she asked, and resolved it amicably. Indeed, she even conceded that I had a point that she missed in part because of linguistic differences between us.
@julie4 is also not a native English speaker, and this sometimes leads to miscommunication. (Notwithstanding what her profile says, she is actually from France.) That said, her English is far better than my French.
Anyhow, while I appreciate your compliments to me,. I would ask you to be more patient with @julie4 and be less harsh. We don't always agree and sometimes the discussion can even get a little heated. (After all, debate is what this site is all about.) However, on the whole, given time and patience I think you will find that @julie4 is friendly, polite, willing to admit error, is quite curious about things, intelligent and taken together quite a nice person.
Hi Mike. actually I agree with @nightdrot. To be honest, that wasn't exactly what I meant with that question. The problem is when I ask a question here I don't take the time to detail it most of the time because writing in English really requires a lot of writing effort. So I often neglect to detail.
By the way by following Nightdrot you are following the smartest person on this site. He was always polite and courteous with me, and always took the time to answer my countless questions. If you want someone with opinions who are nuanced, calm and always respectful then with @nightdrot you are following the right person.
I think there is a sort of cultural rivalry but not a hatred like in the past. I can see how some in France may feel bitter towards Anglo-sphere nations due to English becoming more dominant. I know in Paris it is likely a tourist could go without learning French since English is so prevalent there which I could see could cause anger. I hope friendships and amenity can exist forever between France and Anglo-sphere nations.
2
2 Reply
Asker
+1 y
You are not wrong. when I read history books I become strongly anti Anglo-Saxon, I get emotionally carried away 🤣
But the majority of Anglo-Saxons have always been very nice to me. then the Anglo-Saxons are great nations with colossal stories that reign over the planet, it deserves a lot of respect.
I think if we don't talk about politics and history our people like each other lol
I hope we can and think we should be able to honor the heroes of our past while at the same time recognizing that those enemies of the past are now friends.
Anglo saxons? You mean English or British. The Anglo-saxons are a Germanic people just like the franks (french) were. Both took their territory as the Roman empire collapsed. The Anglo-saxons were conquered by the Normans in 1066 who were a norse-french speaking people from Normandy the leaders of whom had a dutchy in Normandy france and were technically under the king of France. The Normans and Franks warred constantly in the middle ages at one time even fighting a war that lasted 100 years. The Norman's at one time held most of France but eventually lost all lands in france. In general in the middle ages the English fought with the French, the Welsh, the Scots, the Frank's and even the arabs and turks. At various points the French fought with the holy roman empire, the lambada in Italy, goths in Spain and the arabs in France and later in Spain and thd holy land. As European empires rose in power in thecq6th and 17th century the spainish, dutch, Portuguese, French and British empires fought each other constantly until eventually the British empire became no1 for nearly 200 years.
There's definitely a lot of hatred stirred up by the British right wing tabloids and little englanders are everywhere. Historically of course the Anglo-Saxons were ruled over by the French so perhaps they've still got a grudge.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
